BR 

I3.G 



Glass. 
Book. 



1j> K so .3 



/ 



VINDICLE IGNATIANiE; 

OR • — — -*"" 

% f 

THE GENUINE WRITINGS OF ST. IGNATIUS, 

AS EXHIBITED IN THE ANTIENT SYRIAC VERSION, 
VINDICATED FROM THE CHARGE OF HERESY. 

BY THE 

REV. WILLIAM CURETON, M.A., F.R.S. 

OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM ; 
LATE SUB- LIBRARIAN OF THE BODLEIAN LIBRARY. 



QUANTO BEATISS1MI MARTYRIS IGNATII, QUI CUM CHRISTI APOSTOLIS FAMILIA- 
1UTER VERSATUS EST, ET ANTIQUITAS ET AUTH0R1TAS MAJOR ; EO ECCLESIvE MAGIS 
INTEREST VIDERE, NE QUO PACTO APOCRYPHA ILLI ATTRIEUTA CUM AUTHENTICLS 
IPSIUS SCRIPTIS COMMISCEANTUR ET CONFU ND ANTUR. ARCHBISHOP USHER. 



LONDON: RIVINGTONS. 



M DCCC XLVI. 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

RESPECTING THE ANTIENT SYRIAC VERSION 
OF THE 

EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 

QU^E PORRO DE HIS EPISTOLIS SCRIPSI, DICTA SUNTO ABSQUE PRSJUDICIO ULLO 
HIERARCHIC ECCLESIASTICS, QUAM EXIMIE SEMPER VENERATUS SUM : CUJUS 
ANTIQUITAS ITA FIKMA, I'T KULLIS INDIGEAT FALSIS AC SPURIIS AD SUI STABILI- 
MENTUM RATIONIBUS. 

Casim. Oudin, Dissertatio de Vita et Epistolis S. Ignatii. vol. i. p. 139. 

When, in the month of July last, I laid before the public some of 
the results of my researches respecting the Antient Syriac Version 
of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, I resolved to abstain altogether 
from entering into the controversy which I naturally foresaw 
this discovery was likely to produce, not merely in this country, 
but also on the Continent and in America. I was fully aware 
that the progress which truth has to make in such a case must 
necessarily be slow, while it has gradually to win its way between 
the opposite opinions of contending parties, each of which is 
inclined to admit those arguments only as valid which seem to 
support their own cause, and to reject at once as unsound such as 
may appear rather to favour that of their opponents. In the 
course of my inquiries I had been led to observe how far preju- 
dice had usurped the place of argument, and party feeling that of 
judgment, in the Ignatian controversy of the seventeenth century 
— how these had blinded the eyes of the most able scholars and 
critics against the soundest reasoning of their adversaries — how 
each party advancing arguments, which any unbiassed person could 
hardly help to recognise as conclusive, failed to produce convic- 
tion thereby upon the minds of their opponents — how each side 
having only part of the truth, asserted that they had the whole 
truth, and both laid claim to a victory which, under such cir- 
cumstances, never could be decisive on either side. 

Many, I doubted not, would apprehend, from the rejection 
of certain passages from the common editions of the Epistles 



2 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



of St. Ignatius which they had been accustomed to cite as of 
weighty authority, that their cause would lose much of its 
support ; while others would be too ready to run into the oppo- 
site extreme of believing that they had gained additional strength 
to their own views, when they found that some of the autho- 
rities, which had been quoted by those of a different way of 
thinking, had been proved to be without any real foundation.* 
I felt that if I were to enter into the discussion, I should pro- 
bably have to contend against the too hasty conclusions of both 
sides, neither of which, merely upon such grounds, I could admit 
to be well founded. I knew that controversy, while it often leads 
to a breach of charity, seldom begets conviction on the minds of 
those who are engaged in it ; and I was anxious to avoid the risk 
of being thrown into collision with any whom, on other accounts, 
I might be bound to respect or admire, while for the sake of truth 
I should be compelled to convict them of misapprehension or 
want of due information. Moreover, I believed that, with so little 
time as I now have at my own disposal, I should be rendering 
a greater service to literature and theology by labouring to bring 
to light some long-lost valuable documents of Christian Antiquity, 
which, from the accidental circumstance of having bestowed much 
attention upon a particular branch of literature almost entirely 
neglected in this country, I may perhaps be better qualified to 
do than many others of far greater learning and attainments. 

With these impressions on my mind, I resolved to give my 
book to the world even in an imperfect state, to watch with 
attention all the arguments it should elicit on either side, with 
the hope of profiting by them in the future labours upon this 
subject, which I have announced my intention of undertaking, if 
I should ever be happy enough to have sufficient leisure, and 
no other person in the meanwhile should have fulfilled the task in 
a manner which I might deem to be complete and satisfactory. 



* When the excellent Archbishop Usher first published his edition of St. 
Ignatius, it was conceived that he had done an injury to that holy Martyr. 
" I could not but smile when I was of late required by the London Ministers 
to answer the objections which you had made to the Epistles of Ignatius." 
Letter of Dr. Hammond to Archbp. Usher. — See Parr's Life of Usher, p. 542. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 3 



But this resolution I unexpectedly find myself called upon to re- 
scind, not merely to vindicate myself or my own opinions, but for 
the sake of simple, open, undisguised truth ; because, from the pecu- 
liar circumstances to which I have already alluded, I may be almost 
the only one at this moment who has the opportunity of being able 
to remove a veil which from one side has been cast over her, 
partly obscuring and partly distorting her. I allude to certain 
arguments, founded upon. " conjectures " only, relative to Syrian 
writers and Syrian heretics, which have been advanced by the 
writer of an Article in the eighth Number of the English Review. 

Before entering upon the points at issue between us, I would 
beg to make my best acknowledgments to the Reviewer, for the 
" hearty wishes" which he has been good enough to express, for 
my " success in the future literary and theological undertakings 
which I have announced in my Preface" ; and also for the favour- 
able opinion which he has likewise declared, of my " qualification 
for the task, by learning, industry, and zeal/' But at the same 
time I must confess, that I would rather have chosen that he 
should have accused me of ignorance, idleness, and apathy, than 
have so expressed himself as to give ground for the suspicion of 
disingenuousness or want of candour on my part, which some of the 
phraseology that he has employed could hardly fail to generate. 
I may be mistaken in my conclusions on this point ; but some of 
the expressions which he has applied are such as would never 
suggest themselves to my own mind, unless under a strong convic- 
tion of dishonesty; and even then I should feel unwilling to 
make use of them in a public discussion. 

But to come to the subject before us: I will first state the 
Reviewer's conclusions, and then proceed to examine, step by step, 
the arguments by which he has arrived at them. 

Upon the whole, then, the state of the case with respect to Mr. Cureton's 
volume appears to be as follows. He appears (and we do not greatly wonder 
thereat) 

Nam solet inventis plaudere quisque suis ; 

to have been fascinated by his own discovery of this Syriac Version, and 
without waiting to take counsel of his calmer judgment, he propounds it to us 
" as most nearly representing what St. Ignatius himself wrote." , This Syriac 
version proves to be a miserable epitome made by an Eutychian heretic ; and 
so far from invalidating the claim of the Greek text to be received as the 

2 B 



4 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



genuine language of Ignatius, it does, in fact, in our opinion greatly corroborate 
and confirm it. — Page 348. 

The first part of this relates to my private feelings, and could 
therefore only be the result of " conjecture as there are no 
grounds whatever for the Reviewer to found any argument upon, 
by which he might arrive at such a conclusion. I think, however, 
I can shew from my Preface that he might have discovered good 
reason for drawing a different inference. 

Whatever might have been my previous judgment relative to 
the genuineness of the Greek Text of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, 
as it is exhibited in the Medicean and Colbert MSS., is a matter 
of no importance, as any opinion of mine founded simply upon the 
evidence already open to all, and upon which so many able scholars 
had already propounded their different decisions, would be totally 
destitute of weight to the world in general, and not perhaps of 
much consideration with those who may have had opportunities of 
estimating it. But I do not hesitate to avow, that although I have 
often read the seven letters attributed to St. Ignatius in the Greek, 
as they were first published together by Dr. Smith in the year 
1709, I never could persuade myself that all which they contained 
were the genuine thoughts and expressions of that Holy Martyr. 
Every investigation that I was able to make tended to strengthen 
this belief; while on the other hand I felt an anxious desire to 
be convinced of their genuineness, because I believed them to 
be in every way consistent with orthodox doctrine, and to supply 
arguments which, if their authority were unquestionably esta- 
blished, would be very forcible to some minds with respect to that 
system of Church government and discipline, to which I am by 
duty as well as by feeling so closely attached, to which I every day 
feel fresh cause for thankfulness that I belong, and which I shall 
be always ready to maintain and defend to the utmost of mv ability. 

At the same time I must declare my own conviction, that this 
system is based upon so sure and solid a foundation as to stand in 
no need of such arguments for its support ; and I confess that I 
have always felt it to be a subject of regret that the great 
champions, who have stood up in this cause in our Church, should 
have left their vantage ground, and the weapons with which they 
were sure to be triumphant, to descend into a debateable field to 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



5 



fight with arms which had not been thoroughly tried and purified, 
which at the first onset might snap, which the enemy might shiver 
to pieces, and with which it was impossible for them to gain a 
complete and decisive victory. 

My anxiety in seeking for more evidence to come to a decision 
respecting these Epistles was built upon the hope that, by following 
the path which the judicious Prelate Usher had pointed out, I might 
be able to discover some additional grounds for ascertaining the 
truth ; and my desire was, should I be happy enough to do so, that 
they would satisfy my mind as to those doubts which my preceding 
researches had tended rather to augment than remove. I trust to 
the reader's indulgence for thus laying before him so much of the 
history of my own thoughts on this subject, which otherwise can have 
no interest for him, or be of the slightest importance, except in so 
far as it may tend to remove any impression made by the Reviewer, 
that my " being fascinated by my own discovery" might have led 
me to take a one-sided view of the argument, and even to make 
" assertions" and " asseverations" which I could not substantiate. 

With respect to my not " waiting to take counsel of my calmer 
judgment before I propounded this Syriac version as most nearly 
representing what St. Ignatius himself wrote," I beg to be allowed 
to refer to my Preface, page ix. There it will be seen that it was 
no hurried or inconsiderate step which I took ; that so early as 
the year 1839 I had transcribed a part of the work ; that in the 
year after Archdeacon Tattam's first return from Egypt, that is, in 
1840, I had also discovered and transcribed the Epistle to St. 
Polycarp ; that in March 1843 I had likewise found, in another 
MS., the three Epistles, to St. Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to 
the Romans ; that my book was not published till July 1845 ; and 
thus while the labour of the transcription and translation of the two 
last-mentioned Epistles would not have been the work of a week, 
and they might easily have been printed in a month, I delayed the 
publication for two years and four months, during which time I 
had taken the pains to collect all the fragments of Ignatius cited 
by various authors given in the other part of my book, which are 
evidently quoted from a recension similar to the Greek of the 
Medicean MS. ; which militate, according to the Reviewer's notion, 
against that which " I propound as most nearly representing what 



6 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



St. Ignatius wrote and which he seems to think I should have 
done wisely to suppress, in order to give more weight to that which 
I advocate. 

This statement, while it acquits me of the charge of precipitancy, 
and of not " waiting to take counsel of my calmer judgment" 
before I ventured to publish, will, I trust, shew at the same time 
that at least I was candid and ingenuous in delaying so long, in order 
to collect materials which the Reviewer thinks make against my 
own cause, before I gave to the public a discovery, which he himself 
pronounces to be "interesting and important." This may, indeed, 
be no proof in his estimation of my tact and skill in managing an 
argument, but surely it shews my honesty ; and this, I am per- 
suaded, will, upon every occasion, be found to be the best policy. 
The real fact of the case is, I had no theory which I wished to 
maintain, no particular views which I was anxious to corroborate : 
I sought only for plain, simple truth; and in laying my con- 
victions before the public, I wished to furnish them with the same 
evidence as I had discovered for myself, and then to leave them 
to decide according to the dictates of their own judgment. 

But to proceed now to the second part of the conclusion. 

The Syriac version proves to be a miserable epitome, &c. &c. 

I shall now examine step by step the grounds upon which the 
Reviewer believes that he has arrived at this result ; and I must 
beg the readers' indulgence if the process be a slow one. It might 
perhaps be sufficient to point out one or two of the most apparent 
errors into which the Reviewer has fallen, and then leave them 
to infer the rest : but I think it will be wiser to examine the 
matter a little further in detail, as this, while it serves the 
more effectually to shew the misapprehension of the Reviewer, 
may also at. the same time supply many facts relative to the 
Epistles of St. Ignatius, which will be useful in enabling some 
of my readers to form a more correct judgment relative to the 
whole question now before them. 

To begin, then, with the very first word of the Article, the title 
of my book is given " An Antient Syriac Version," &c. p. 309. 
It is usual, I believe, for a Reviewer to exhibit the title of a work 
under his consideration accurately : and verily the difference here 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 7 

is so slight that I should not have adverted to it, if the use of the 
indefinite instead of the definite article did not seem to have 
reference to an argument of the Reviewer in a later part of his 
paper, which will appear as we proceed. Even this change of 
one of the smallest words in our language has its peculiar sig- 
nificance". 

In the first paragraph he proceeds to give some account of the 
manner in which the valuable collection of Syriac MSS. now 
in the British Museum was obtained. I will stop to make no 
other correction here than that of an error as to the number of 
these volumes : the Reviewer says, " amounting in the whole, we 
understand, to about 250 volumes :" The real number is 366. In a 
note on a passage in this paragraph, when mentioning the MSS. of 
the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara, he writes, " Which appear to 
have been partially known to Assemanni (read Assemani), and 
are referred to by him in his Bibliotheca Orientalis." A short 
history may be necessary for some of my readers in this place. 

In the year 1706, Gabriel Eva, a Maronite, being returned to 
Rome from a journey into Egypt, related that he had seen, during 
a visit to the convents in the Desert of Nitria, libraries of 
considerable extent, in which he had noticed some MSS. 
more than nine hundred years old, and among them many 
works of the Greek Fathers long since translated into Syriac, 
and also many original works in the Syriac, Arabic, and .^Egyp- 
tian or Coptic languages [midtos Patrum Grcecorum tractatus in 
Syriacum olim translator; multos etiam Syriace, Arabice ant 
JEgyptiace a suis primis auctoribus exaratos], together with an 
immense mass of Rituals and Service Books.* This intelligence 
having reached the ears of the reigning Pope, Clement XL, he 
became anxious to enrich the stores of the Vatican by adding to 
them a collection of MSS. of such great antiquity and value. 
Accordingly, in the beginning of the summer of 1707 he des- 
patched into Egypt Elias Assemani, the cousin of the celebrated 
J. S. Assemani, for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain this 
collection. With great difficulty he prevailed upon the monks to 
sell him about forty volumes [vix quadraginta Elias a Monachis 



* See Assemani Bibl. Orient, vol. 1. Pr?ef. §. vii. and §. xi. 



8 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW. 



cegre impetravit soluto pretio]. These, after having been upset 
on the journey down the Nile, and fished up again from the 
bottom of the river, he transmitted to Rome. They arrived safely, 
and were deposited in the Vatican at the end of the same year. 

About eight years later (in 1715) the Pope resolved to send a 
second time into Egypt to endeavour to procure the remainder of 
these MSS. J. S. Assemani himself was selected for this under- 
taking. He arrived at the Desert of Nitria in the month of August 
in the same year. I quote his own words respecting these MSS. : — 
" Bibliothecam intravimus : ducenti fere codices dumtaxat reperti. 
Repertos codices recensui, selectos circiter centum petii : sed nullis 
precibus praBter paucos quosdam, quos tamen ipse selegissem 
prgestantissimos, persoluto pretio, a monachis obtinere licuit." In 
vol. i. p. 561 of his Bibliotheca Orientalis, he has given a catalogue 
of these Codices Nitrienses. They supplied him chiefly with his 
materials for that great work. He cites these MSS. constantly 
through the course of it ; not merely those which had been brought 
to Rome, but others also still remaining in the library of the 
convent of the Desert, from notes which he had taken during his 
residence there ; by means of which I have been able to identify 
some of the MSS. now in the British Museum with those which he 
cites : and after all this, the Reviewer furnishes us with a note, 
that "This collection appears to have been partially known to 
Assemanni." 

Now although a learned Divine might, perhaps, have been 
often led to consult this work of Assemani on several subjects of 
ecclesiastical history and literature, concerning which he could not 
elsewhere obtain information ; and although a judicious critic, in 
quoting this authority, as the Reviewer has sometimes done — for 
what purpose and in what manner it will appear as we proceed — 
might reasonably have been expected to make himself thoroughly 
acquainted with the grounds and nature of its contents; I am 
quite ready to allow that ignorance on this point would have been 
very excusable, even in a very learned man ; but only up to that 
moment when he volunteered to criticise or to teach respecting it. 
I have not, however, entered upon this subject gratuitously for 
the sake of pointing out ignorance, or of making any animadver- 
sions which may not appear to belong to the subject now before us ; 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



9 



but simply because I see in this instance, in the very first page of 
the Reviewer's paper, a degree of hasty carelessness, in which I am 
willing to find the best excuse that can be pleaded for many 
other statements that I am about to consider, and which do enter 
deeply into the question we are now engaged upon. 

In this page I have nothing more to call the readers' attention 
to, than that the Reviewer speaks of some of the Syriac MSS. 
as of " very great antiquity ; " and also designates them as " valu- 
able MS. materials." The reason of my noticing this will be 
seen as we proceed. ^ 

In the next page, 310, I have only to observe that my volume 
has its correct title — "The Antient Syriac Version," &c. 

At page 311 the Reviewer terminates a quotation from my 
Preface with these words: — "That he wrote several letters to 
" various churches, on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom for the 
" Faith, is a fact, than which none is better attested." But this is 
only the first part of a sentence, which proceeds in the following 
words : — " But how far those Epistles which have come down to 
" our times, bearing his name, are to be regarded as his genuine pro- 
" ductions, has been a subject of the greatest dispute. Indeed, 
" there are no writings either of Christian or Heathen antiquity 
" concerning which a greater variety of opinion has prevailed, and 
" more discussion taken place." A reason also for the omission of 
this part of the sentence, as well as of those which follow, will be 
sufficiently apparent as we advance. 

In page 312 we find the following passage, concerning which 
I make no remark, but only submit it for the readers' perusal : — 

In 1623, Nicolas Vedelius, having observed that Eusebius, who composed his 
Ecclesiastical History not much more than 200 years after the martyrdom of 
Ignatius, had stated (as we have above said) that Ignatius wrote seven Epistles 
on his way from Antioch to Rome, and had specified the titles of those Epistles, 
and that these assertions were corroborated by St. Jerome, was thence led to 
infer, that among the fifteen attributed to him, the seven alone which bore the 
titles mentioned by Eusebius were really from the pen of the Martyr. 
This hypothesis was confirmed by the fact, that none of the three which 
existed only in Latin were of the number of the seven ; and that all the seven 
were found both in Latin and in Greek. 

In the next page the Reviewer gives the following account 
relative to the researches of Archbishop Usher : — 



10 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

The erudite and enlightened primate of Ireland, Archbishop Ussher, was the 
first to perceive that certain passages had been quoted as from St. Ignatius by 
English theologians living in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries ; and he 
was thence led to believe that MSS. of his Epistles might be found in this 
country. His conjecture was a happy one: in a short time after he had 
enounced it, two MSS. were discovered in England, one in the library of 
Caius College, Cambridge, another in that of Dr. Richard Montague, Bishop 
of Norwich. Both these MSS. were in Latin ; and, upon examination, both 
were found to exhibit the seven Epistles specified by Eusebius, but in a much 
shorter form than in either the Greek or Latin hitherto published. It was also 
observed that all the passages cited from Ignatius by the earliest Christian 
writers were found in substance in this newly-discovered abbreviated Latin 
version of the seven Epistles ; and those passages which had appeared to the 
best critics to be inconsistent with the age of Ignatius were not found in it : 
hence Archbishop Usher was induced to make a second conjecture, namely, 
that this abbreviated Latin recension exhibited the Epistles in the form in 
which they had come from the hand of the Martyr, and he expressed his hope 
that a Greek MS. would be found, corresponding with this shorter Latin one, 
and he was prepared to recognise in that Greek MS., whenever it should be 
discovered, the genuine words of Ignatius. 

In this passage there are several things to be noticed. First, 
the Reviewer tells us that "both these MSS. were found to exhibit 
the seven Epistles specified by Eusebius ; " that is, to the churches 
at Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, Smyrna, and 
to Polycarp. (I give the order as I read it in Eusebius.) But 
the Reviewer does not tell us that these MSS. also contained four 
other Epistles attributed to St. Ignatius, and one addressed to him, 
without any distinction being made as to their authenticity, in the fol- 
lowing order : — *To the Smyrneans, to Polycarp, to. the Ephesians, 
the Magnesians, the Philadelphians, the Trallians, the Epistle of 
Maria Cassabolita to Ignatius, his letter to her, and to the Churches 
of Tarsus, and Antioch, to Hero, and to the Romans. Neither does 
he even hint at the circumstance of the Archbishop's having 
rejected as spurious one even of these seven; viz. that to Polycarp. 
I shall have occasion to say more on this subject hereafter. But he 
writes, that " Archbishop Usher was induced to make a second 
" conjecture, namely, that this abbreviated Latin exhibited the 
" Epistles in the form in which they had come from the hand of 
" the Martyr." 



* See Usher's Dissertatio, p.cxli. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



11 



Now it is impossible for me to deny this statement, for I can- 
not say what the learned Archbishop might or might not have 
conjectured. It does not however seem very probable that he 
should have made such a " conjecture," when he writes in the follow- 
ing terms: — "The manuscript Latin copy of Ignatius in Cains 
" Colledg Library hath this singular in it, that in the genuine 
" Epistles (for the other I heed not) those passages are wanting 
" which are excepted against as insititious and supposititious by our 
" writers ; and that the place touching the Eucharist, cited by 
" Theodoret out of the Epistle to the Smyrnians, which is wanting 
" in all other books, is to be found in this. But I intend ere long 
" to publish Ignatius myself, as considering it to be a matter of 
" very great consequence to have a writer of his standing to be 
"freed (as much as may be) from these interpolations of later 
" times."* And again, "But here you are to know, beside the 
" common edition, wherein the genuine Epistles are foully depraved 
" by a number of beggarly patches added unto his purple by later 
" hands : there is an antient Latin Translation to be found in the 
" Library of Caius Colledg, in Cambridge, which, although it be 
" very rude, and corrupt, both in many other, and in this very 
" same place also of the Epistle to the Magnesians, yet it is free 
" from these additaments, and in many respects to be preferred 
" before the common Greek copy, as well because it agreeth with 
" the citations of Eusebius, Athanasius, and Theodoret ; and hath 
" the sentences vouched by them out of Ignatius, and particularly 
" that of the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Smyrnians, which are 
" not at all to be found in our Greek ; and hath in a manner none 
" of all those places in the true Epistles of Ignatius, against which 
" exception hath been taken by our Divines ; which addeth great 
" strength to those exceptions of theirs, and sheweth that they were 
" not made without good cause." f And still further, in the disser- 
tation prefixed to his edition of St. Ignatius he writes : " Ut igitur 
" totum hoc negotium tandem aliquando finiamus : quod olim de 
" libro, qui Prcedicatio Petri inscriptus est, disquirendum Origenes 

* Letter to Dr. Ward, dated Diiblin, Sept. 10, 1639.— See Parr's Life of 
Archbp. Usher, p. 495. 

t Letter ccv., concerning the Sabbath and observation of the Lord's Day. — 
Parr's Life, p. 504. 



12 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

" proposuit, sit necne genuinus liber, an nothus, an mixtus : idem de 
" Graecis quae circumferuntur Ignatii Epistolis hodie si quaeratur ; 
" omnino respondendum esse concludimus, earum sex nothas, toti- 
" dem alias mixtas, nullas omni ex parte sinceras esse habendas et 
" genuinas"* We see, then, that the learned Prelate pronounces 
six of these Epistles to be spurious, six (not seven) to be partly 
genuine and partly spurious, and none to be altogether "pure and 
genuine; so that it would appear that he has no claim to the 
" conjecture that this abbreviated Latin recension exhibited the 
Epistles in the form in which they had come from the hand of the 
martyr;" but that the whole credit of this "conjecture" belongs 
to the learned Reviewer himself. 

With respect to the following passage, that the Archbishop 
" expressed a hope that a Greek MS. would be found corre- 
sponding with this shorter Latin one, and he was prepared to 
recognise in that Greek MS., whenever it should be discovered, 
the genuine words of Ignatius," I observe, that the learned 
Prelate was well aware of the existence of such a Greek MS., as it 
is evident from these words in his Dissertation : — " Ut ex ea sola 
" (he speaks of the Latin version above mentioned) integritati suae 
" restitui posse Ignatium, polliceri non ausim : nisi arteritis exem- 
u plaris subsidium accesserit ; vel Graeci, cujus ex Bibliotheca Flo- 
u rentina obtinendi spes mihi nuper est injecta non exigua ; vel saltern 
" Syriaci, quod Romae reperiri adhuc posse non despero." t As to 
how far the Archbishop " was prepared to recognise in that Greek 
MS. the genuine words of Ignatius" will be best understood from 
what he has himself said after the edition published from " that Greek 
MS." came into his hands : — " Id tantum de quo jam conqueramur, 
u habemus : non reperisse nos Mediceum codicem, qualem eum nobis 
" Turrianus commendaverat, emendatissimum. Quo tamen et cum 
" vetere nosiro Interprete Latino (quern hanc editionem secutum 
u fuisse constat) et cum vulgatis libris Graecis collato, ita correctio- 
" nem temperandam censuimus : ut quae ex illis addendae videbantur 
" voculae, uncis includerentur ; manifestiora errata e textu tolle- 
u rentur quidem, sed scripta lectione cum nota 7/). simul apposita ; 



* See Arclibp. Usher's Dissertation, p. cxxxviii. 
t See Dissertation, p. xxvi. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



13 



" meliores vulgatorum codicum lectiones, et de dubiis locis conjec- 
" tursB, a Pat. Junio et Is. Vossio suppeditatse, suis in locis ad mar- 
" ginem apponerentur. Quibus respondens Latina etiam versio 
" est addita, ex nostri Interpretis antiqua et H. Vairlenii nova 
" utcunqne conflata : qua, interea, dum integrius Grcecum nobis 
" obtingat exemplar, contenti esse poterimus" * 

The Reviewer now comes to describe the edition of Archbp. Usher. 

In the meantime he published, from the edition of Paceus, the Greek text, 
corrected and abbreviated by the Latin version, in an edition which appeared 
at Oxford in 1644.— p. 313. 

I have not been able to find any mention made by Usher him- 
self of the edition from which he published his own. Ham- 
mond says it was from that of Vedelius.f And this seems most 
probable, because he mentions it last in his " Lectori/' and speaks 
of it as omnium locupletissima. Certainly he did not adopt that 
of Paceus entirely, for he has made use of the copies which followed 
the Nydpruck as well as the Augsburg MS. in arranging the 
text, which is sufficiently apparent from the notes to his own work. 
Nor is the description given by the Reviewer of the Archbishop's 
edition as a " Greek text corrected and abbreviated by the Latin 
version" at all calculated to convey an adequate notion of that 
volume. The Greek text is given entire in one column, and the 
vulgar Longer Latin version in another. Those passages in the 
Greek, which have no equivalent in the Shorter Latin version of 
the two English MSS., are printed in red letters, to distinguish 
them from the rest, and this Latin version itself is found at the end 
of the volume with a distinct title page — JEpistolarum Ignatii 
Vetus Latina Versio ; ex duobus Manuscriptis, in Anglia repertis, 
nunc primum in lucem edita; and is dated 1642, or two years 
before the date of the title-page at the head of the volume. 

It is to be regretted, that the Reviewer should not have 
been more accurate in his description of this famous work, as well 
as in citing the no less celebrated treatise of Bishop Pearson, 
to which, on both the occasions that he has mentioned it, he has 

* See Archb. Usher's Preface to the Appendix Ignat. 4to. London, 1647. 

t " I had yet the Lord Primates edition of the Epistles, which is known to 
contain the Vedelian Text." — Answer to the Animadversions in the Diss, 
touching Ignatius Epistles, p. 12. 



14 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



given a title which, although marked with inverted commas, 
is not quite correct. 

The Reviewer next proceeds — 

At this very time, the celebrated Isaac Vossius obtained permission from the 
Grand Duke of Tuscany, to examine the MSS. in the Medicean Library at 
Florence, and found among them a Greek MS. containing six of the seven 
Epistles mentioned by Eusebius ; and on comparing this Greek MS. with 
Ussher's two Latin MSS., he perceived that the one coincided accurately with 
the other, and he published an edition exhibiting the Epistles as they appear 
in this Florentine MS. at Amsterdam, in the year 1646. 

I am quite willing to allow Vossius all the credit which he 
well deserves for giving to the world his edition of the Ignatian 
Epistles: but surely he can scarcely be said to have "found" 
this MS. The existence of it, as we have just seen above, was 
known to Archbishop Usher, and it had been described nearly a 
century before by Turrianus as vetustissimus et emendatissimus* 
Vossius's own words are : " Quod autem pura, germanaque, jam 
" legere possis scripta haec Ignatiana, Benevole Lector, Biblio- 
" thecae Mediceae debes ; debes Serenissimo Principi Ferdinando II, 
" Magno Etruriae Duci ; cujus incredibili erga studia amore, 
" inclytae ejus Bibliothecae mihi contigit usura, et per hanc Igna- 
" tianus ille, quern damus, thesaurus." Prceface. 

Moreover, I think that no simple-minded person would gather 
from the words of the Reviewer, that this MS. contained more than 
the " six of the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius : " that is to 
say, others which the Reviewer rejects as spurious, but which, 
nevertheless, so far as the authority of this MS. is concerned, stand 
upon an equal footing with the six. I quote Vossius's own account : — 
" Animus fuerat illas solum dare Ignatii epistolas, quae in codice Flo- 
" rentino haberentur. Verum cum ille etiam alias quasdam Ignatio 
" tribueret, licet ejus non essent ; uti Epistolam ad Tarsenses, et ad 
" Mariam Castabalensem ; etiam has adjunxi ; praesertim cum 
" viderem non parum variare ab hactenus yulgatis. Cum vero 
1 codex ille quern dixi Florentinus ad finem esset mutilus ; 
" nullis potuissem argumentis aclsequi, quaenam in eo epistolae 
" desiderarentur, tarn ex genuinis quam spuriis, nisi nuper ad manus 

* Turrian. explanat. in Clement. Constitut. Apost. lib. 9. cap. 17. Id. pro 
Epist. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 10. — See Preface to the Appendix Ignatiana. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



L5 



" venisset versio vetus, edita ab Reverendissimo HibemiaB Primate, 
" Usserio Armachano. Simulatque enim illam videre contigit, 
" non dubitavi, quin easdem plane epistolas continuerint, et codex 
" iste, quo vetus Interpres usus est, et Florentinus." * 

In page 314, although there be many things against which I 
might take exception, yet, inasmuch as they relate chiefly to 
matters of opinion depending upon points of criticism, I shall pass 
them by, and proceed to those which concern matters of fact. 

The Reviewer continues — 

Consequently the Medicean text was supposed to exhibit the words of Igna- 
tius. This opinion was maintained by Ussher, and Vossius, and Hammond, 
who composed two learned treatises upon the subject, and above all, by 
Bishop Pearson, who examined the objections brought against the seven 
Epistles by Salmasius, Blondell, and Daille, and was generally supposed to 
have set the question of their genuineness at rest for ever in his celebrated 
treatise, entitled "Vindicia; Ignatianee," t published at Cambridge in the 
year 16 72. 

Unfortunately, the first of these sentences, in which the Re- 
viewer writes, " consequently the Medicean text was supposed to 
exhibit the words of Ignatius," is very indefinite, as, indeed, are 
most of his expressions when he touches upon this point. For 
instance, at page 311 he says, "from the pen of Ignatius;" at 
p. 312, "really from the pen of the martyr;" at p. 315, "seven 
epistles in the language in which Ignatius wrote," referring to 
the form, in the Greek, as contrasted with the " Latin Version " 
in the same sentence ; and again at p. 248, " the claim of the Greek 
Text to be received as the genuine language of Ignatius " which 



* See Vossius' Edition of Ignatius, p. 116. For the benefit of some of my 
readers I transcribe here a description of this MS. from Bandini's Cata- 
logus Codd. Greec. Bibliothecse Laurentianse. Vol. 2. 1768. — p. 345. 

"Cod. VII. Epistolfe incerti auctoris, seu potius S. Maximi, Athanasii, 
Basilii Magni, Gregorii Nazianzeni, et Ignatii Epistolae." — No xxxi. p. 242. 
" ToG ayiov 'lyvarlov eiriaroXai. S. Ignatii Epistolee ix. Prima est ad Smyr- 
nseos, ultima ad Tarsenses, cujus finis desideratur ; desinit enim in verbis 

aveTTia-raroi yap elcri rod xt — Codex Grsec. Membr. MS. in 4to. 

Majori. Ssec. xi. : initio et fine mutilus, in cujus primo folio lndiculus manu 
Lucse Holstenii conscriptus legitur. Constat foliis scriptis. 252." 

t The real title of this work is Vindicia Epistolarum S. Ignatii. Autore 
Joanne Pearson, Presbytero. 



16 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



relates to the matter. This indefinite manner of writing may seem 
to leave a loop-hole for the Reviewer to escape through when 
I come to grapple with him : but I think that we must understand 
his words here in the same sense as they bear at p. 313, where 
the expression, " the genuine words of Ignatius/"' corresponds with 
"the form in which they had come from the author;" that is, 
that the writer means, in this place, the genuine Epistles of St. 
Ignatius in the form and words in which thev came from his own 
hand. 

Usher's opinion on this point has been already stated : and in 
part, also, that of Yossius, who held the Epistles as he published 
them to be in the mam genuine. I will add, however, a few 
sentences from his notes on these Epistles, to shew that he did not 
place implicit reliance upon the Medicean MS. : — Nihil hie 
cliff ert vetus versio. Et tamen aliquid ulcus latet. ad Smyr. 
p. 262. Itaque non opus est repetere ilia verba, quce hie locum 
non habent. Delenda provide, ut irreptitia. ibid. Add it hie 
vetus versio : Et Daphnum, &c. similiter quoque Pseudo-Ig- 
natius: /cat Aa(pvov k.t.X. quce verba omrdno librarii culpa 
excidisse puto. ibid. p. 264. Locus proculdubio corruptus. ad 
Ephes. p. 273. Ex veteri interprete adparet, hunc locum non 
esse integrum, ibid. p. 275. Depravatus locus, ad Magnes. 
p. 275. Tnepte deformavit hcec Pseudo-Ignatius. TJnde adparet 
et jam ejus cevo corruptum fuisse hunc locum, ibid. p. 277. 
Omnino rescribendum est, ut et Pseudo- Ignatius, et vetus interpres, 
legerunt. ad Philad. p. 282. Nihil hie juvat Pseudo-Ignatius. 
Vetus interpres legit e^o^aua. Sed ne tunc quidem locus fuerit 
sanus. ad Trail, p. 285. Etiam interpres codicem corruptum secutus, 
ut puto. Antiochus autem nos hoc loco juvare potest, ibid. p. 286. 
Ntsi Pseudo-Ignatius, et vetus interpres, hie juvarent ; vix jwsset 
ex ingenio iste locus restitui. ibid. p. 287. Monstrum lectionis. Spe- 
ciosius Pseudo- Ignatius i^escripsit. Quis credat tarn inveterata 
in his Epistolis esse vulnera, ut tempus, quo ilia inflicta sunt, pro- 
pius Ignatii, quam nostrum accedat sceculum ? ibid. p. 290. 

To these I may add several instances in which Yossius prefers 
the reading of the Longer edition of the Greek : and points out 
variations from the Latin version of the English MSS., as well as 
proposes conjectural emendations; but these, perhaps, will be 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



enough to shew his opinion of the Medicean MS. that it did not 
exhibit the Epistles of St. Ignatius as they came " really from the 
pen of the Martyr." 

For the sake of some of my readers to whom Hammond's 
works may not be accessible, I will transcribe here a few sentences 
of his " Dissertatio Secunda de Ignatio" from which they may 
be able to gather his opinion also, in regard to the accuracy of the 
Medicean Text, as well as the correctness of that method of criti- 
cism which selected as genuine seven only of the Epistles attributed 
to St. Ignatius : " Certe si Ignatius unquam Epistolas scripserit 
" (nec enim post tot sasculorum intervalla, sine quadam vecordias 
" mixtura, falsi postulabitur antiquitas omnis, quse scripsisse 
" affirmat), si epistolarum ejus a Polycarpo ipso facta Sylloge, 
" non sit inter impias et impudentes Patrum illusiones ponenda, 
" si exemplaria antiquissima Medicea, et Anglicana, locorum 
" quidem intervallis satis dissita, omnem tamen inter se mutuo, 
" simul et cum iis, quibus majores nostri usi sunt, concordiam 
" foventia, aliquain apud nos auctoritatem nacta fuerint, si, cum 
a nihil ex omni retro scriptorum thesauro contra nitatur, Ignatius 
" tot et talibus vindiciis vindicatus, ab interpolatorum mixturis 
" satis purgatus credi possit, non est quod ulterius litigemus. §.11. 
" Istum Isaaci Vossii codicem, assumentis quam plurimis liberatum, 
" Epistolis etiam integris non paucis multatum, et ad Polycarpianae 
" Sylloges (ab Eusebio agnitae) septenarium numerum redactum, 
" nos quidem pronis ulnis amplectimur ; et licet alias omnes, 
" istam praesertim ad Heronem Diaconum (cui bene se velle profi- 
" tetur Walo) Sanctissimo Martyri abjudicandas esse, neutiquam 
ei contendamus, statuimus tamen has tantummodo septem, ut ex 
" Mediceo et Anglicano codice prodierunt, a nobis in hac causa de- 
" fendendas proponere, ut codicem, si leviuscula quaedam demas, 
" satis purgatum, et cui nihil objici possit, quod non eadem faci- 
" litate rejiciatur. Et, si sibi constare voluerit vir doctissimus, nec 
" omnes ceu pro certo supposititias, una clade aequare, sed tantum 
u ut interpolatas multis locis, ad lapidem Lydium vocare, non 
" verebor dicere, commodiorem purgandi, aut explorandi Ignatii 
" rationem, a nemine excogitatam esse, (nec a D. Blondello, aut 
" Walone excogitari posse) quam quas illi jamdudum, duorum 

c 



18 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

" prsecipuorum virorum, Archiepiscopi Armachani et Isaaei Vossii 
" diligentia, et opera, contigerit." * 

Even the learned Pearson himself found several things to object 
against in the text of these Epistles. This will be apparent from 
one or two passages which I am about to cite from his own Notes, 
as they were published by Dr. Smith. Hac sententia valde per- 
plexa est j neque satis sani sunt codices, ad Ephes. p. 34. Sic locus 
in codice Florentino interpolatus est, ibid. 35. Locus est corruptus, 
ibid 38. Sensu nullo : unde apparet vetustissimum hoc in Greeds 
codicibus mendum, ad Trail, p. 52. And further, in several in- 
stances, he prefers the reading of the longer interpolated text to 
that of the Medicean MS. Had Vossius, these two able Prelates, 
and the no less able Dr. Hammond, been possessed of the addi- 
tional element of criticism which the recently-discovered Syriac 
Version supplies, they would doubtless have exhibited the Text of 
the Epistles of St. Ignatius in a far different form from that in 
which they have left it, but which, with the means they had at 
hand, was the best that they were able to furnish. 

The Reviewer's statement, " that Bishop Pearson was generally 
supposed to have set the question of the genuineness of the seven 
Epistles at rest for ever, in his celebrated treatise," does not appear 
to be borne out by facts. That very able and eminent divine 
was raised to the see of Chester in reward for his great learning 
and labours ; and perhaps no Prelate of the Church of England 
ever better deserved the honour, or filled that important office with 
greater ability. The danger which had threatened the whole 
bench of Bishops was now no longer felt, and the necessity of 
defending the cause of Episcopacy was urged by no external pres- 
sure. Favour rather than merit, and political and personal connec- 
tion rather than learning, became the surest way to promotion, and 
consequently we have but few examples of men eminent either for 
great learning or much theological ability among the dignitaries of 
the church as the eighteenth century advanced. On this account, 
perhaps, the question respecting the genuineness of the Epistles 
of St. Ignatius, with others of a similar nature, lost much of its 



* See Hammond's Works, vol. iv. p. 746. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OE ST. IGNATIUS. 



L9 



interest in this country, and it seems, therefore, never to have 
been revived, except by Winston for another object. The weight 
of the eminent name of Bishop Pearson might have been consi- 
dered as decisive with many persons, who had neither the incli- 
nation nor the learning requisite to read his book and examine his 
arguments. And indeed, under similar circumstances, when the 
conclusions are favourable to their own opinions, most men per- 
haps would be more willing to rely upon such an authority than to 
undergo the labour of investigation for themselves. I may per- 
haps be forgiven for stating here the fact, that since my attention 
has been directed particularly to this subject, I have never received 
an answer in the affirmative from any one person to whom I have 
directed my inquiry, whether he had read Bishop Pearson's cele- 
brated book. 

But the question respecting the Epistles of St. Ignatius is not 
peculiar to England only, nor has it ever ceased to be discussed 
on the continent, with various shades of opinion, from the time of 
the first publication of the Shorter Epistles by Vossius, down to 
the present day. About two years after its appearance an answer 
was published to Bp. Pearson's Vindicice anonymously, by Math, 
de Larroque, with the following title : Observations in Igna- 
tianas Pearsonii Vindicias, et in Annotationes JBeveregii in Ca- 
nones sanctorum Apostolorum. Rothomagi 1674. I shall not take 
upon myself to offer any opinion respecting this work ; but only 
observe, that it was considered by many to be quite as complete 
an answer to Bp. Pearson as his own work was to Saumaise, 
Blondell, and Daille. But on both sides this, of course, was a 
mere matter of opinion. 

In the Appendix to this Reply I have given the opinions of 
about thirty critics and scholars on the subject of the Ignatian 
Epistles, from the year 1650 to 1843. Many more might have 
been added ; but these of persons of widely-different modes of 
thinking, Jesuit, Romanist, Anglican, Lutheran, Puritan, Arian,* 



* I beg to remind my readers that I am in no way responsible for any of 
the tenets or opinions of the authorities which I cite, and which I have only 
adduced as testimonies to a matter of criticism. I should not have thought it 
necessary to make this observation, if I had not of late seen so many instances 

C 2 of 



20 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



will be sufficient for the purpose for which they have been 
adduced. I beg the reader's careful perusal of them. He will 
see that they not only disprove the Reviewer's statement, that 
" Bp. Pearson's celebrated treatise was generally supposed to 
" have set the question of the genuineness of the seven Epistles 
" at rest for ever ; " but also that very eminent men, such as 
Hammond, Schelstrate, Tillemont, Grabe, have questioned the 
propriety of that criticism which selected only the seven. He 
will further see how several judicious scholars, by the application 
of critical sagacity alone, propounded a judgment on this point, 
which the discovery of a MS., written more than a thousand years 
previously, has fully verified, such as Tentzel, Schroeck, Griesbach, 
Ziegler, Schmidt, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, and how the last 
of these, in a manner, foretold this discovery. The second edition 
of Neander's Church History of the first three centuries was 
published at the very time that this collection of Syria c MSS. 
was brought into England. I think it hardly possible for any 
candid mind, upon the comparison of the opinions of these scholars 
with the result of this discovery, to resist the conviction that the 
Greek text even of the Shorter Recension has been much interpo- 
lated, and that the claims of the Syriac version to be " entitled to 
our serious attention, as most nearly representing what St. Ignatius 
himself wrote," are immeasurably greater. 

I ought not in this place to omit to mention, that in my Preface, 
at p. viii., I had called the readers' attention to the discussions 
which have of late years taken place in Germany respecting 
the Epistles of St. Ignatius; but the Reviewer has passed this 
circumstance over in silence, either as not suited to the cause 
which he has undertaken to advocate, or as altogether unworthy of 
his notice. 

At p. 315 the Reviewer states— 

Thus at length, in the year 1689, seven Epistles, corresponding with those 
ascribed to Ignatius by Eusebius, were now in the hands of the world. 

This is rather a broad conclusion upon such narrow premises. 

of the same fact being distorted and represented under different shapes, accord- 
ing to the different media of party feeling through which it is viewed, that 
I believe it to be impossible in these days even for the most orthodox to be too 
cautious. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



21 



The case is, out of eleven Epistles, all equally ascribed to St. 
Ignatius, seven had been selected as bearing the names of seven 
spoken of by Eusebius, in two of which passages were found that 
had been cited by him. Upon the very same grounds may seven 
of the Longer Recension, which the Reviewer rejects as inter- 
polated, be said to correspond ; they also bear the same names, 
and two of them likewise contain the same passages cited by the 
Ecclesiastical Historian j indeed Whiston has undertaken to shew 
that these asree better with the Longer Recension of the Greek 
Epistles than with the Shorter.* 
The next is a remarkable paragraph, and I therefore transcribe it : — 

Nor is this all : another Greek MS. containing a small portion of one of these 
seven Epistles, that to the Ephesians, has been discovered by Mr. Jacobson, 
at Paris, in our own age ; and it will be seen from the collations given by 
him, in his recent edition of the Apostolic Fathers, that it coincides, as far as 
it goes, with the received text. 

I suppose this passage can only have been written by the Re- 
viewer for the purpose of giving additional weight to the " received 
text," which he advocates. I will therefore proceed to examine 
what is the amount of it. But before I do this, I think it due to 
Mr. Jacobson to say a word or two relative to this discovery. 
I certainly do not find that he ever speaks of having made any 
discovery in this matter, and it is very far from his character to 
arrogate to himself any praise which does not justly belong to him. 
But it proves to be no discovery at all " in our own age." The exist- 
ence of this fragment, such as it is, has been known to the world 
for more than a century. This will be sufficiently evident to any one 
who will take the trouble to look at the Catalogus Codicum Manu- 
scriptorum BibliotheccB Regice, vol. ii. printed at Paris in 1740. 
At page 185 we find jS t o. 950 thus described : — Codex char- 
taceus olim Baluzianus. Is codex sceculo decimo quarto exaratus 
videtur. It contains, according to the catalogue, forty fragments, 
perhaps excerpta, and among them No. 26 : Fragmenta ex Epi- 
stolis Sancti Ignatii Martyris ; and, to shew the good company 
which this valuable fragment keeps, I will quote one or two more 
of the descriptions of its fellows : — 14. Nicepliori Callisti Jragmen- 



* See Whiston's " Essay upon the Epistles of St. Ignatius," p. 14. 



22 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



turn de Paulo Samosateno. 15. Ejusdem fragmentum de mira- 
culo a Sancta Euphemia patrato. 16. Ejusdem fragmentum de 
miraculo a sancta Glyceria patrato. 17. Ejusdem fragmentum de 
miracuh a Beata Virgine patrato. The fragment which we are 
speaking of contains only just so much matter as is found in 
twenty-one lines of Mr. Jacobson's edition, which is printed in 
very large type, and in sixteen of the edition of Hefele. The 
Reviewer states that "it coincides, as far as it goes, with the 
received text." Mr. J acohson gives the following variations ; — 
Page 289. Note 16. rVo Mapias] t~o ^Slapias rtjg irapdevov Cod. 
Paris. Page 291. Note 4. Mapla{\ Cod. Paris. lslapia$ Ttjs aei 
irapdevov kcu Ocotokov. Not inconsiderable variations these in so 
short a space — less than six lines — but still such as we might have 
been naturally led to expect from the company in which this 
fragment is found. Page 293. Note 8. i^a^eia cum Cod. JlSto 
habent Vossius, Cotel. Aldrich. Russel. Ma^tc Usser. Vedel et sic 
in Cod. Paris. 

I think the reader will now be able to estimate the " additional 
evidence which has accrued in favour of the seven Epistles" 
by the discovery, "in our own age," of "another Greek MS." 
which has been described a hundred years ago, as written on 
paper in the 14th century ; and which, in the space of sixteen 
lines of ordinary type, contains the two valuable additions 
above specified and one various reading that agrees with the 
Longer Interpolated Text. But the Reviewer seems to regard 
this with especial favour, and it multiplies under his fostering care 
before he reaches the end of his paper. In the summary of his 
arguments, at p. 349, where he is bringing up the whole force of 
his battery to the attack, we find it marshalled among the rest, 
" we have Greek MS. Fragments of some of these Epistles, also 
coinciding with the received text."" 

At page 315, speaking of the three Epistles as they are found 
in the Syriac, he writes — 

These also correspond, as far as they go, with the Epistles bearing the same 
titles, respectively, in the received Greek text ; that is, the materials contained 
in the Syriac agree, in a certain sense, with those of the Greek ; but there is this 
important difference between the Syriac and the Greek, namely, that the former 
does not contain half the quantity of matter which is fotind in the latter. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 23 

This also is rather a bold statement for the Reviewer to make 
when my volume is in the hands of the public, and every one 
who chooses has the means of testing it. I shall proceed to do so 
now. By the " received text " it is evident that he means 
that founded upon the Medicean MS. in the Epistles to St. 
Poly carp and to the Ephesians, and upon the Colbert MS. in the 
Epistle to the Romans. 

In the Epistle to St. Polycarp I have pointed out in the Syriac 
Text five places where it varies from the Medicean Greek, in all 
of which its readings are confirmed by the Longer Interpolated 
Recension, and in one of them by the quotation made by Chry- 
sostom also.* In another place, where it varies, this is confirmed 
by the Longer Latin Version, and in seven others it has its own 
independent readings.! Moreover, instead of the greater part of 
the seventh and eighth chapters of the Greek editions, which 
the Syriac does not recognise, after the sentence "I salute him 
who shall be thought worthy to go into Syria," it adds the words, 
" in my stead, as I charged thee." The Reviewer has alluded 
to this one addition only, at p. 339, for what purpose will be seen 
in the sequel. 

I have taken especial notice of this, as well as of other addi- 
tions and variations, and of the arguments which appeared to 
me to be grounded thereon, in the fifth division of the Pre- 
face to my book, to which I must beg to refer, as it would 
take up too much space to insert it here. This part occupies 
more than six closely-printed pages of the preface, of which 
twenty-five only are devoted to the consideration of arguments 
respecting the claims of the Syriac Version ; and, in my estimation, 
it affects them considerably. But the Reviewer has altogether 
omitted to take the slightest notice of this, either because he 
deemed it unworthy of his observation, or, perhaps, because it did 
not seem to strengthen the views which he has undertaken to 
advocate. 

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, besides many passages of the 
Greek that the Syriac does not acknowledge, and which I have 



* See Notes 10, 24, 25, 30, and 33 on this Epistle, 
t See Notes 3, 1 1, 13, 14, 17, 22, 27, 32. 



24 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



consequently omitted from the text, there are fifteen variations 
from both the Greek and Latin editions.* There are four places 
in which it varies from the " received text," but corresponds with 
the rejected longer interpolated Recension, f 

There is a sentence also,! in which the Syriac version agrees 
with the Latin of the English MSS. in supplying an omission in 
the Greek text, which Bp. Pearson (unquestionable authority 
with the Reviewer) has pointed out as requisite for the sense. 
I give the passage in Greek, and also the Reviewer's own trans- 
lation of it : — eXm^ovra rrj Trpoffev^fj vfj.cov eircrv^elv ev c Pa>yu>7 
6r]pio/j.a^r]crat, iva (iia rov jj-aprvplov €7rcTV%eu dwrjdco fj.adr)Tr]S eivai 
rov inrep rjjjLCov eavrov av6ve r /Kovrog ®ea> irpo(T(popav kcu dvcriav. 'ETret 
ovv K.T.A. 

" I hope to obtain by your prayers, to fight with beasts at Rome, that thus 
I may be able to be a disciple of God, who offered Himself an oblation and 
sacrifice for us." — p. 345. 

I quote the learned Prelate's words : — " Haec sententia valde 
" perplexa est. In Grascis duo vocabula deesse videntur, quae 
" tamen in Cod. suo Vet. Int. vidit et transtulit. Forte scriptum 
" fuit i<$e7v ecrTTovda^ere post dypio/jLaxrjcrai. Quod si post e<T7rot;£a- 
u &re statim, 'E^el. ovv k.t.X., omnia erunt clara et perspicua."§ I 
beg the reader to remark that the learned Bishop suggests here, that, 
if something be added and something omitted, all will be clear 
and intelligible. The Syriac version does add what he suggests, 
and also omits part of what he suggests, and all is clear and 
intelligible : " — and I hope through your prayers, that, by means of 
" this of which I am deemed worthy, I may be empowered with 
" strength that I may be the disciple of God — ye were diligent 
" to come and see me." I should also observe here, that 
at p. 345 the Reviewer attempts to seek for an argument against 
the authority of the Syriac version, from the fact of its having 
nothing to correspond with the latter part of this sentence in the 
Greek : but this also is not found in the Latin version of the 
English MSS. 



* See Notes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 18 ; 19, 22, 25, 26. 

t See Notes 3, 4, 7, 9. 1 See Note 8. 

<S See Dr. Smith's Edition, p. 34. Mr. Jacobson's, p. 262. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



25 



In the Epistle to the Romans we find the following variations 
from the Colbert MS., upon which is founded what the Reviewer 
terms the " received text." There is one confirmed by the read- 
ings of the Longer Interpolated Greek, and of both the Latin 
versions : * a second, supported by the same Greek, the Latin 
version of the English MSS., and the other Syriac translation 
at p. 68 : four others which coincide with the same Greek and 
Latin version : f two supported by the same Greek and the other 
Latin translation : X one by the same Greek and Bp. Pearson's sug- 
gestion :§ one by the Latin version of the English MSS., and the 
quotations given by Eusebius, Jerome, and Rumnus:|| one by 
the same Latin version and Vossius's conjecture : IF one by the same 
Latin version, and the quotation of Timotheus of Alexandria : ** 
one by both the Latin versions ; and another by the Latin version 
of the English MSS. only. ft These amount to fourteen varia- 
tions from the Colbert MS., all of which are supported by other 
authorities. 

Indeed, there can scarcely be imagined any stronger argument 
in proof of the great antiquity of the Syriac text, than that which 
is supplied by these several variations and coincidences. They 
shew that it must have followed a recension which supplied the 
ground-work of both the longer and shorter recensions of the 
Greek, and also of the copies made use of by Timotheus, Ruflinus, 
Jerome, Chrysostom, and Eusebius ; for there is no other way to 
account for them, unless we suppose that the Syriac translator 
had all these at hand, and made a selection from them in arranging 
his text; an hypothesis which can scarcely be maintained. 

In addition to those which I have already enumerated, there 
are also eleven independent variations, and two entire chap- 
ters in the Epistle to the Romans in the Syriac, which, according 
to the Greek, do not belong to it, but to the Epistle to 
the Trallians; together with three short sentences which have 
nothing at all to correspond with them in the Greek — see p. 83. 



* See Note 23 
X See Notes 22, 24. 
|| See Note 28. 
** See Note 18. 



t See Notes 8, 9, 10,25, 35. 

§ See Note 34. 
f See Note 5. 
tt See Note 27. 



28 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

I have likewise offered some remarks on this subject in the fifth 
division of my Preface j but of these, as I have stated above, the 
Reviewer has taken no notice whatever.* 

After what I have now brought under their notice, I think most 
persons will agree with me, that the " Syriac Epistles do not corre- 
" spond with the received Epistles, bearing the same titles 
" respectively in the received text, as far as they go ; " but that 
there are other important differences than merely those omissions 
which the Reviewer imagines he has accounted for. 

In page 316, I find a passage in which I can express my hearty 
concurrence with the Reviewer's statement. He says — 

It is true, that we have, as yet, a Syriac version of only three Epistles ; but 
whatever consequences may legitimately follow from a comparison of the 
Syriac with the Greek, in the case of these three, may reasonably be extended 
to the other four. 

I have nothing to do with the translation of the long inter- 
polated passage which is given in this and the following 
page. I cannot therefore pause to inquire into the merits or 
authorship of it, but leave it for those who may be curious in 
instituting comparisons. 

At page 318, the Reviewer cites two passages from the preface 
to my work ; the one relating to the interpolations in the Greek, 
which concern the Bishops and other clergy ; and the other 
to those respecting the Godhead of our Lord and Saviour. In 
both these instances he breaks off just at the point where my 
argument begins ; but, referring to them again at page 319, he 
writes — 



* If the Reviewer has omitted all mention of these passages, because he did 
not deem them worthy of notice, he has taken a widely different view of the 
subject from that of the writer of a critique upon my book in the Literarische 
Zeitung of Berlin, to whom I am indebted for having furnished his readers 
with a true, impartial, and unbiassed account. His words on the question 
spoken of run thus : — " Die merkwiirdigste Abweichung von den bisherigen 
Texten ist aber die, dass am Ende des Briefes zwei Capitel eingeschoben 
werden, die nach jenen dem Briefe an die Trallianer angehbren. Es leuchtet 
sogleich ein, dass dieser Umstand bei der Beurtheilung der Recension, welche 
der syrichen Uebersetzung zum Grunde lag, von ausserster Wichtigkeit ist." 
No. 99. §. 1578. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



27 



He thinks it very improbable that the Syriac Translator should have omitted 
any passages in favour of episcopacy, because he has retained the following 
words in the Epistle to Polycarp. 

And again — 

He asserts also that it is clear that the Syriac translator could not have 
omitted or altered any passages for the purpose of denying the divinity of our 
Blessed Lord, or he would not have retained others in which it is fully 
admitted, and even directly asserted. And he gives conclusive proof of the 
truth of this latter affirmation, by citing numerous passages to this effect from 
the Syriac Version. 

The arguments which I have advanced are the same in both 
instances ; and if they be conclusive in the one, I cannot under- 
stand why they should not be equally so in the other. But this 
would not at all fall in with the hypothesis of the Reviewer, when, 
in a subsequent part of his paper, he comes to " prove the Syriac 
version to be a miserable epitome by an Eutychian heretic." 

In this page he also writes — 

And, finally, Mr.Cureton arrives at the conclusion, that the received Greek 
text is an interpolated one, and that the interpolations were introduced into it 
about A.D. 360, by some person who was desirous of adding the weight of the 
name of St. Ignatius to the decision of the Council of Nice against the Arians, 
and also of asserting the claims of the episcopal order against the novel hete- 
rodoxy of Aerius of Pontus, who began about that time, A.D. 360, " first to 
assert the equality of presbyters with iheir Bishop."* 

That I arrive at the conclusion, " that the Greek text is an 
interpolated one," as almost every one who has examined the 
question critically before me has done, is undoubtedly true. But 
surely the Reviewer must have read my words over in a very 
hurried manner, to be able to state that I arrive at another con- 
clusion which I never once thought of ; namely, that " the in- 
terjiolations " (by which I suppose he implies all the falsifica- 
tions made in the text, or at least the greater part of them) were 
introduced by some person into these Epistles about A.D. 360. 
I have never hazarded any such conclusion respecting them. 
If my book be in the reader's hands, he will see that the following 
passage is in the very first page : — " It is with inexpressible 
" regret that I find myself compelled to abandon at present the 



My words are, with the Bishop. — See Preface, p xxxiv. 



28 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



" most interesting task which I had proposed to myself, of consi- 
" dering in detail each of the passages not recognised by the 
a Syriac translator, for the purpose of endeavouring to ascertain 
" when, why , and by whom they were introduced ; and by this 
" means to establish a canon applicable to all the Epistles of 
u St. Ignatius, which may serve as a guide in separating the 
" spurious from the genuine. But this would have retarded the 
" publication of this little work," From this it will be seen that 
I had come to no conclusion on this head, which indeed embraces 
the most difficult questions respecting these Epistles. I was 
unwilling to contravene the opinion which Archbishop Usher and 
Bp. Pearson seem to have held, that there were six or seven genu- 
ine Epistles in the time of Eusebius, although I have hinted my 
suspicion on this point, at p. xxxii. of the Preface, and at p. 98 in 
the Notes. Assuming it therefore for granted, that the Syriac of 
the Epistles to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans repre- 
sented a pure and genuine text, and consequently, upon this sup- 
position, the same which they believed Eusebius to have had : 
the first instance that I found of any interpolated passage having 
been cited, was in an Epistle attributed to Athanasius, written 
about A.D. 360, or somewhere about thirty years after Eusebius 
wrote his Ecclesiastical History. I was led then to inquire 
whether there were any grounds which might seem to account 
for the introduction of this, or of any other of the omitted pas- 
sages during this period. I quote here, for the greater perspi- 
cuity, what I have said in the place of my preface alluded to, 
by which it will be seen that I have only ventured to speak 
hypothetically on this subject : — " This is just the period to which, 
" from internal evidence, we should be led to assign the introduc- 
" tion of many of those passages, although there be others that 
u seem to refer to rather a later time, and which might perhaps 
" have been added subsequently. All those which are directed 
" against the Arian heresy, and which, as it has been noticed above, 
" seem to have reference to the definitions of doctrine by the 
" Council of Nice, we should naturally suppose to have been 
" inserted about this time, when the matter was fresh upon men's 
" minds, and when the object, both of supporting the decisions of 
" that Council, and of opposing Arianism, by alleging the autho- 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



29 



" rity of St. Ignatius, might have supplied a motive and reason 
" for their insertion. Besides, the very words themselves, so cited 
" by Athanasius, seem to bear direct allusion to this. El? larpoq 
u i(TTiv, (rapKiKos re kol irvev par ikos, ^evvrjroq kcu a^evvrjroq, ev crapKi 
u <yev6/j.evos ©eog, ev Oavarco £corj a\rjdlvrj, kcu ck Mapiag kol e/c 
u ®eov, irpa>rov TtadrjToq kol Tore cnradrjg. 

" Moreover, this was just the period when Aerius of Pontus, 
" disappointed in his hopes and expectations of being raised to the 
" Episcopate, began to propagate his heresy, and first to assert 
" the equality of Presbyters with the Bishop. And this, among 
" other reasons, might have furnished the interpolator with a 
" motive for insisting so much upon the necessity of the Episcopal 
" office, and of its being essential to the constitution of Christ's 
" Church. Nor does there appear to be any force in the objection 
u which may perhaps suggest itself here — that, had this passage 
" been interpolated at so recent a period, it would hardly have been 
" cited as genuine by Athanasius. It appears far from improbable 
" that he might never have met with the Epistles of St. Ignatius 
" previously. And we can hardly avoid concluding that they 
" must have been unknown in their present form to Epiphanius, 
" who wrote about the same time, or he would not have failed to 
" bring forward their authority against various heresies, and more 
" especially in refuting that of Aerius, above spoken of." — 
P. xxxiv. 

I should not have thought it necessary to take this trouble, to 
shew that I had not " arrived at the conclusion that the interpo- 
lations were introduced into the text by some person about 
A.D. 360," if this had not been first stated by the Reviewer, and 
then used by him as an argument in a subsequent passage. Even 
had I propounded the most absurd theory possible as to the time 
at which any or all of the interpolations had been introduced, and 
attempted to support it by the most futile and ridiculous arguments, 
this would not in the slightest degree have affected the question as to 
their being interpolations, which stands upon different grounds. It 
would only have shewn my own folly in attempting to meddle 
with, a subject for which I was incompetent, and to argue upon 
a matter concerning which I was ignorant and unprepared. 

At page 321, the Reviewer writes — 



30 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

We believe that we have now presented to our readers the principal 
grounds on which Mr. Cureton has formed his opinion that the genuine 
expressions of St. Ignatius are not to be sought for in the hitherto received 
Greek text, but in the Syriac version now first published to the world. Lest, 
however, we should have inadvertently omitted any thing material in his 
arguments in favour of that version, we will transcribe his own summary of 
them. 

Now all this appears very candid at first sight ; but surely it is 
far otherwise in reality, to transcribe a summary of arguments, 
which assume the readers' acquaintance with what has preceded, 
and then to attack them in detail. I think, however, that every 
one who examines my preface will find many other grounds for 
strengthening the opinion that I have expressed on this subject, 
which are not in any way alluded to in this summary, and which 
the Reviewer seems not only " inadvertently to have omitted," 
but also most diligently to have kept out of sight, and withheld 
from " his readers' " consideration. Of this last sort I will only 
mention the circumstance of his never even alluding to the fact, that 
the seven epistles were always found in MSS. together with others 
which even the Reviewer rejects as spurious, and that all these 
were placed upon the same level, and no distinction made there as 
to their authority. He has never once adverted to the circum- 
stance, that some of these so rejected Epistles have been highly 
esteemed, and considered equally genuine by several critics who 
judged not that the mere mention made by Eusebius was sufficient 
evidence in this case. He has never alluded to the circumstance 
of Archbishop Usher having rejected as spurious the Epistle to 
St. Poly carp, or of his desire to obtain the Syriac version, of the 
existence of which he was aware, to assist him in purifying the 
text of these Epistles, even after he was possessed of the Latin 
translation that so closely corresponds with the Medicean Greek. 
He has said nothing of the anxiety of Bishop Fell to obtain this 
version, nor of the exertions of Huntington, in the East, to pro- 
cure it for him, not only after the edition of the Greek by Vossius, 
but also after the celebrated Defence of Bp. Pearson. He has never 
even hinted at Larroque's Reply to that Defence, although, as it 
will be seen as we proceed, he could not have been ignorant of it. 
He has thought the information conveyed in the following 
passage from my Preface not worthy of notice ; but, as it shews 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



31 



how far the next sentence which I am about to cite from the 
Reviewer is correct, I will transcribe it here : — " From that period 
u until the present time no further information relative to the 
" Syriac version of these Epistles seems to have been obtained. 
" The question, however, as to their genuineness and the two 
" different recensions, has of late years been renewed and discussed 
" with various shadows of opinions in Germany. The longer 
" edition has again found an advocate* : the shorter edition has 
" gained new supporters t: both have been denied to be perfectly 
" genuine; but still have been acknowledged, although altered 
" and changed from the original copy, to contain in them part, 
" if not the whole, of the genuine letters \ ; and also their authen- 
" ticity has again been altogether questioned.§ The only hope, 
" therefore, of satisfactorily solving this difficulty still seemed to 
" be in the chance of this discovery of the ancient Syriac version, 
" made previously to the time when corruptions were introduced 
" into the text." 

In page 321 the Reviewer writes — 

In the year 1672, Bishop Pearson, in the Dedication of his " Vindicise Tgna- 
tianaj " to Archbishop Sheldon, presented the venerable Bishop of Antioch to 
the Primate of England, with a respectful supplication in his behalf " ne pro 
impostore haberetur and ever since that time the Ignatius of Ussher, of Vos- 
sius, and of Hammond has been regarded as the Ignatius of Eusebius, of 
Irenseus, of Polycarp, of St. John. To speak of no other testimonies to this 
effect, he has been proclaimed as such by the English theologian who most 
resembled Pearson in the depth of his erudition and the soundness of his judg- 
ment, Bishop Bull. 

Most entirely do I concur in the u supplication " of Bishop 
Pearson respecting Ignatius, "ne pro impostore habeatur," (I 
think it right to quote the learned Bishop's words exactly) ; 



* C. Meier, in Ullmann, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1836. p. 340. 
t Arndt. ibid. 1839, p. 136. Ric. Rothe, Die Anfange der Christ. Kirche, 
p. 739. 

t Neanders, Kirchengeschichte, Vol. i. 738 ; and the English Translation by 
H. J. Rose, Vol. ii. p. 334. Schmidt, Versuch iiber die gedoppelte Recension 
der Briefe des Ignatius ; in Hencke, Magazin fur Religions Philosophie, 
Vol. iii. p. 91. Netz, in Ullmann, Studien und Krit. 1835. p. 881. Car. Hase, 
in Kirchengeschichte, p. 88. Third Edition. 

§ See Baur, in Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie 1836. fas. iii. p. 199. et 
1838. fas. iii. p. 149. 



32 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



but at the same time I would likewise offer a no less " respectful 
supplication": ne impostor pro Ignatio habeatnr. I also agree with 
the Reviewer, " that ever since that time the Ignatius of Usher, of 
Vossius, and of Hammond has been regarded as the Ignatius of 
Eusebius, of Irenasus, of Polycarp, of St. J ohn and I would add, 
of Origen also ; but I think I have already brought forward evidence 
enough to shew, that the seven Letters which bear his name have not 
" ever since that time" met with the same favourable consideration. 

In a note upon this passage, the Reviewer cites from Bishop 
Bull the following words : — 

" Ignatii genuinas esse Epistolas septem Eusebio memoratas. ab Reve- 
" rendissimo Usserio Latine primum ex duobus MSS. in Anglia nostra reper- 
ec tis, dein ab eruditissimo Isaaco Vossio e Mediceo Codice (excepta tantum ad 
" Romanos Epistola) Greece editas, contra Blondellum satis probarunt Vossius 
" ille et Hammondus, adversus Dallreum verb ita copiosissime demonstravit 
" Episcopus Cestriensis ut apud cequos arbitros lis ilia de Ignatianis et contro- 
" versia tot a jam definita videatur.* 

Although the learned Bishop in these words says no more than 
that the dispute might then seem to be altogether decided, he 
subjoins to this another sentence, expressing his conviction on this 
head still more strongly, but which, even though it might appear to 
fortify the Reviewer's argument, he has altogether omitted. Is it 
because there occurs in that passage mention of a reply having been 
immediately made to the work of Bishop Pearson ? This, at any 
rate, is ' a matter respecting which the Reviewer has been very 
cautious not to give the slightest information to his readers. But 
I will quote the sentence as it continues — " Neque enim quenquam 
" (piXa\t]dr], qui in hoc literarum genere vel mediocriter versatus sit, 
" de Epistolis illis tantillum dubitare facient Sophisticas Observa- 
" tiones, quas in Pearsonum auctor anonymus anno 1674 Rotho- 
" magi edidit. Frustra omnino vir ille dispersos ac profligatos 
" Dallffii sui ordines restituere atque instaurare mtitur." 

At page 323 the Reviewer writes — 

Again, we know as a fact from the testimony of Polycarp, bis friend and 
fellow-disciple, and brother bishop, and eventually his brother martyr, that 
Ignatius did write Epistles: we know also that Polycarp was in possession of 
copies of these Epistles, which he received from the hands of Ignatius himself, 
and that they were annexed by him to his own Epistle addressed to the Phi- 



* Defensio Fidei Nicsense, Sect.i. cap. ii. §. 7. edit. Grabe, p. 20. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



33 



lippians, and that the Epistle to which the Ignatian letters were attached was 
publicly read in the ecclesiastical assemblies of Asia to the time of St. Jerome. 
It is certain also that Irenseus, the scholar of Polycarp, and Bishop of Lyons, 
possessed Epistles of Ignatius ; and it is an indubitable fact, that Eusebius and 
St. Jerome, living in the fourth century, had seven Epistles of Ignatius, and that 
these seven Epistles coincided in title and substance with those which we now 
possess. If, therefore, our seven Greek Epistles are not the genuine Epistles, 
we should be glad to know what has become of them ? 

I observe here that the Reviewer has again omitted to mention 
Origen, the only authority during the third century, who speaks 
twice of Ignatius by name, and quotes two passages from his 
Epistles. Is it because both of these passages are found in the 
Syriac version exactly as cited by him ? 

In the next page he proceeds : — 

They were not letters to a private individual, but to various public bodies ; 
they were addressed to Churches ; kept in their archives ; copies of them were 
sent from one Church to another ; they were attached to an Epistle, that of 
Polycarp, publicly read in Christian Assemblies. We confidently affirm that 
an interpolator in intention, would have been unable to persuade the Church 
officers : in different parts of the world to surrender their copies to him to be 
amplified to twice their original size ; &c. 

I pass over the Reviewer's illustration of this point, drawn from 
" Cathedral Chapters/' and " sealed books of Common Prayer." 

Now, I think that any simple and single-minded person, 
unacquainted himself with the facts of the case, and looking 
up to the Reviewer as a learned authority, could hardly draw any 
other inference from the words above cited than the following : — 
That Ignatius put into the hands of Polycarp, or at least sent to 
him, seven Epistles, which Polycarp attached to an Epistle of his 
own written to the Philippians, that these Epistles were copied by 
them and sent to other Churches, who likewise performed the 
same good office for their neighbours, carefully keeping their own 
copies in their " archives," under the custody of their " Church 
officers," and that they were publicly read in "the Christian 
assemblies." 

I shall not stop to institute any inquiry respecting the existence 
of church* archives, the probable nature of their contents, or who 

* The Reviewer is doubtless aware, that even the existence of buildings, 
set apart as churches, for the three first centuries, has been questioned by 
several learned men. See Bingham's Antiq. Book viii. ch. i. sect. 1 3. 



34 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

might have been the " Church officers " that had the care of them, 
in the early times of the second, third, or even fourth century ; but 
proceed to examine the grounds upon which the rest of the Re- 
viewer's statements are based. 

The first mention made of any thing written by Ignatius is in 
the following passage from the Epistle of Polycarp : — 'E^pa-ty-are 
fj.01 kcu v/meig kcu 'I'yvartog, Xva eav rig cnrep^tjrat elg ^vpiav, kcu ra 
Trap* vfjicov aTroKOfxicrr} ypajufxara' oirep Troirjaco, eav Aa/3w Kaipov evde- 
T0Vy e'lre eyco, e'lre ov 7refx^Jf(o Trpeo-fievtrovra kcu irepl v/ulcov. Tag 
eincrToXag 'lyvarlov rag 'Tre/j.^delcrag rjfnv i/7r' avrov, kol aWag ocrag 
er^oyuev irap' fjiMv, eire/n'^ra/ji.ev v/uuv, Kadcog evereiXaarQe' alriveg vttotc- 
ra^fxevaL eicri rrj e-vrurroXyj ravrr)' e£ a>v fxcyaXa axpeXqdrjvai dvvrj- 
aea-de. Uepie^ovat ^ap tt'kttiv, kcu viro/uLovrjv, Kal iracrav otKodo/urjv 
rrjv etg rov Kvpiov r}fj.<ov avr)KOv<rav. I quote these words as 
they are given by Eusebius,* taking it for granted that they 
are genuine, without waiting to consider any of the objec- 
tions which have been brought against them,f from the circum- 
stance of their not being found in any of the Greek copies of St. 
Polycarp' s Epistle, of which several are extant, and also from their 
not agreeing perfectly with the Latin translation of this Epistle, as 
well as other weighty exceptions which have been taken against 
them. But allowing them to be entirely genuine, surely all that 
can be gathered from them is, that Epistles of Ignatius to him, and 
other letters, as many as he had by him (I am willing to allow that 
these also refer to letters by Ignatius, although the text has left it 
indefinite), St. Polycarp appended to his own Epistle, and sent 
them, together with it, to the Philippians. Not one word is 
said how many these Epistles were, or to whom they were ad- 
dressed. This must have been in the year 107, or, according to 
Bishop Pearson, in the year 116 at the latest. 

Neither Irenssus nor Origen,in quoting the words of St. Ignatius, 
ever once mention his letters, much less do they say any thing of 
the persons to whom they were sent. The next account therefore, 
at all definite, which we have of the Epistles of this holy martyr, is 
that given by Eusebius, who does not appear to have been quite sa- 



* Hist.Eccl. lib iii. c.36. 

1' See Hefele, Proleg. pp. 54. and 14. and Daille, De Ignat. Epist. c. 32. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



35 



tisfied himself on this head, as he prefaces his notice of them with 
the words exec* He speaks, however, of seven, or at least 

of six ; and the names of the parties to whom they were addressed 
agree with the names of the same number out of the twelve found 
in the Antient Latin copies first published by Archbishop Usher, 
and five or six of those in the imperfect Greek copy of the Medicean 
Library. If, then, the recurrence of the names of three persons 
mentioned by Eusebius in three of these Epistles, and the citation 
of one passage from one Epistle, and of two more from another, be 
sufficient to warrant such a conclusion, " these seven Epistles 
coincided in title and substance with those which we possess." 

It may, however, be worth while to remark here, that Eusebius 
styles Onesimus the Pastor (joi^tjv) of the Church at Ephesus, and 
Polybius the Ruler (apx<ov) of that at Tralles, while in the Epistles 
both of them are called Bishop (eirLcrKOTroq) ; but this may only be 
a rhetorical manner of expression, similar instances of which are 
observable in the Review now before us. 

Moreover, in the passage as cited by Eusebius from the Epistle 
to the Romans, which is comprised in seventeen lines of Mr. Jacob- 
son's edition, or fourteen of that of Hefele, there are no less than 
nine readings, varying from the Medicean text, one of which is the 
omission of two words, and another of one. In the next sentence 
cited by Eusebius from this same Epistle, consisting only of two 
lines, there are also two various readings, one of which is the 
omission of two words ; and in the third passage quoted from the 
Epistle to the Smyrneans there are two variations, although it 
consists of not more than four lines.f These variations may seem 



* It seems also to be quite evident, from the following passages, that Eusebius 
himself did not esteem the genuineness of the Epistles of St. Ignatius and St. 
Polycarp to be equally established with that of the Epistle of St. Clement to 
the Corinthians, which was acknowledged by all : — Ecu 6 UoXvKapiroq 8e tovtgzv 
avroov /uefAvrjTai ev rrj (pepopevv aurov irpoq &i\nnrt](riov<; eiriaToXq. Bookiii. 
c. 36. axrirep ovv apeXei rov'lyvartov ev aiq KareXe^apieu i'mcrroXalq, ko.1 tov 
yuevro? ev t# avoopoXoyrifjievy nrapa iracriv, 't]v £k Trpoerwirov ttj? 'PcojuatW eKKXrjo-ias 
t5 KoptvOicov BtervTrcocraTo. ibid. c. 37. C H piei/ ovv rod KKrjp.evTo<; o/jioXoyovfuevt] 
ypatprj, irpoof]Xo<;. E'lptjrac Se kch to, 'lyvariov kcu YioXvKap'Kov. ibid. C. 38. 

t In making these collations I have used the Edition of Eusebius, by Dr. 
Burton, Oxford, 1838 ; and Mr. Jacobson's Edition of the Apostolic Fathers. 

d2 



36 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW. 

to be of no weight, and unworthy of consideration in the eyes of 
the Reviewer; but if we are to examine the question with that 
strict criticism which alone can help us to arrive at the truth in 
a question of such difficulty, they appear to me to be of great im- 
portance. 

But to return to our subject, assuming the year 330, given by 
the Reviewer — although no doubt he is aware that this is a dis- 
puted question — as the time at which Eusebius wrote his history, 
and the date of the journey of St. Ignatius to Rome, to beA.D. 
116, as advocated by Bishop Pearson, an interval of more than two 
hundred years must have elapsed between the mention of Letters 
from Ignatius to Polycarp and the first notice whatever that we 
have given us of the names of the other parties to whom any of his 
Epistles were said to have been addressed. Moreover, this was a 
period abounding in forgeries. 

Jerome composed his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers about 
sixty years after Eusebius, according to Bishop Pearson, in A.D. 
393*; and any thing which he has said on this subject is of no 
additional authority, for he copied almost word for word from 
Eusebius, as the learned Prelate just spoken of writes : " et re- 
liqua Eusebiana fere omnia, tacito Eusebii nomine, transcripsit." f 
That his knowledge of the Ignatian Epistles was not accurate 
is plain, since, in his third book against the Pelagians]:, he quotes 
the words of the' Letter attributed to St. Barnabas, and says that 
they belong to St. Ignatius. § One passage from the Epistle to 
the Ephesians is referred to by Jerome, in his Commentary on 
St. Matthew ||; but this same passage had been cited before by 
Origen, in his sixth Homily on St. Luke : and since Jerome trans- 
lated this very homily of Origen into Latin H, he must of course 
have acquired a knowledge of these words of St. Ignatius from this 
source. In like manner, he seems to have borrowed those of the 

* See Vindicise, p. 9. t Ibid. p. 10. 

+ See Edition of Erasmus, Vol. ii. p. 200. 

§ See Menard's notes on the Epistle of Barnabas, p. 108. Bp. Pearson's 
Vindicise, p. 29. Cotelerius, Testimonia Veterum de Bamabae Epistola, torn. i. 
p. 4. 

|| Chapter i. vers. IS. See Cotel. Test, de S. Ignatii Epist. Vol.ii. pp. 1.3. 
Bp. Pearson's Vindicise, p. 1 0. 

^[ See Fabricius, Bibliotheca Greeca, Vol. v. p. 228. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



37 



Epistle of Barnabas, above mentioned, from the same writer, who has 
cited them at the end of his first book against Celsus*; for Jerome 
was well versed in Origen's works, and translated several of them 
into Latin. f He also, once again, mentions the name of Ignatius.! 
So far, then, as we have any evidence before us to decide upon the 
matter, it seems most probable that Jerome never saw the Ignatian 
Epistles ; for the only accounts that he has given us of them are 
taken from other works, which we know that he had in his hands, 
and made much use of. The Reviewer therefore, in this place also, 
goes rather too far, when he states that " it is an indubitable fact 
that St. J erome, living in the fourth century, had seven Epistles of 
Ignatius." I am sure the Reviewer himself must allow that it often 
happens that the words of an author are cited by persons who 
have never seen his books, or even been at the pains of verifying 
the quotations which they have taken from second-hand sources. 

But to proceed : in his work on Ecclesiastical writers above 
mentioned, Jerome, when speaking of St. Poly carp, uses the words 
which the Reviewer has quoted in note 8, p. 323 : Scripsit Poly- 
carpus ad Philippenses valde utilem Epistolam, qua usque hodie in 
Asia conventu legitur; by which he declares that a very useful 
Epistle of St. Polycarp was read about the year 393 in Conventu 
Asia : but not one word has he said respecting any Epistles of St. 
Ignatius being appended to it, or being read in a similar manner. 
It is highly improbable that he would have omitted altogether to 
notice such a fact, had he ever heard of it and believed in its exis- 
tence, either when writing .respecting this Epistle of St. Polycarp, 
or those of St. Ignatius. 

I give, at the bottom of the page, a note of E. S. Cyprianus 
respecting the meaning of the words Conventu Asia.% 

* See Origen against Celsus, Lib. 1. Vol. i. p. 378. edit. Benedict. 

t Nam quod dicunt : Orlgenis me volumina compilare, et contaminari non 
decere Yeterum scripta, quod illi maledictum vehemens esse existimant, eandem 
laudem ego maximam duco, cum ilium imitari volo, quern cunctis prudentibus 
et vobis placere non dubito. Hieronymns, Prologus in Secundum super Mi- 
cheam, Erasmus' Edition, Vol. vi. p. 119. 

X See adversus Helvidium, Vol. ii. p. 12-, and Pearson's Vind. p. 10. 

§ Quern Asise conventum intelligat, difficulter cognoscitur. Sopbronius 
reddit : ev tq A<riavri avvoSu. Constat igitur, non esse sermonem de conventi- 
bus Christianorum quotidianis, sed de notabili quodam totius Asiaticee gentis 

conventu, 



38 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



I believe I have now stated, as fairly as I can, the whole of the 
evidence respecting this matter, and I have given my authorities 
for the same. And what does it amount to ? Simply to thus much : 
that St. Polycarp sent to the Philippians, at their request, Letters* 
which he had received from St. Ignatius, and other Letters — they also 
might have been from St. Ignatius, but it is not stated so — and that 
he subjoined them to an Epistle which he was then writing : but 
there is no account whatever of the parties to whom those other 
Letters were addressed — that more than two hundred years after- 
wards, for the first time, Eusebius mentions the names of seven 
parties to whom Letters of St. Ignatius were said (A070? ex 61 ) 
to have been sent, and cites short passages from two, in which, 
nevertheless, there are several variations from the Reviewer's 
" received text" of these Epistles — that, about sixty years still 
later, Jerome repeats what Eusebius had said; alludes to one 
passage quoted in a work of Origen, which he himself had 
translated into Latin ; makes a mistake with respect to another 
also cited by Origen, by putting into St. Ignatius' mouth words 



conventu. De provinciis Romanorum ex Plinii libro x. epistolis LX, CI et 
aliunde novimus, quod diem ilium, quo imperatores ad reipublicse guberna- 
cula admoti essent, quotannis magna religione ludisque ac spectaculis celebra- 
verint, prseeunte videlicet provincise prsefecto, quern sequebantur milites ac 
legati civitatum, quos provinciales vocant Trajanus et Plinius. Hunc morem 
in Asia obtinuisse dnbitari non potest, credoque hunc conventum ab Aurelio 
Antonino, lib. iv. Euseb. c. XIII. koivov rrjq 'Aeru/?, commune Asia appellari, ut et 
Valesius sentit in notis ad ilium Eusebii locum. Hunc quotannis conveniendi 
morem in Asia retentum fuisse arbitror, quum jam Christiani imperassent, 
adeoque koivov Acncts commune Asia, heic indigitari ab Hieronymo. In con- 
ventu enim illo Christianos primo omnium de religione consultare decebat, ac 
pradegere acta martyrum, prsecipue vero epistolam sui primarii episcopi, 
Polycarpi, ut gentiles convenientium multitudine, ardore ac zelo, induceren- 
tur ad amplectendam doctrinam salutarem ; turn etiam ut Christiani confirma- 
rentur admirando Polycarpi monumento, ac prsepararentur ad sustinendas 
persecutiones, si qua? forte, ut Juliani tempore, supervenissent. Intelligo 
autem conventum Asise proconsularis, non Asia?, quee tertiam orbis terram 
partem notat. See Hieronymi Catalogus Scriptorum Ecc. a E. S. C. 4to. 
Franco/. 1722. p. 245. 

* This, in all probability, means only the one Epistle, which is come down to 
us, addressed to Polycarp, but containing also advice and admonition to the 
Smyrneans who were under his charge. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 39 

which it appears he never uttered ; once again mentions his name ; 
and afterwards writes, that the Epistle of St. Polycarp was read, 
even to his own time, in conventu Asia. 

Let us now see what the Reviewer makes of this. "The 
Epistles were addressed to various Churches, and copies of them 
were made by Polycarp, and annexed to an Epistle of his own, 
which was publicly read in the Church. — It is certain, also, that 
Ireneeus, the scholar of Polycarp, and Bishop of Lyons, possessed 
Epistles of Ignatius ; and it is an indubitable fact, that Eusebius 
and St. J erome, living in the fourth century, had seven Epistles of 
Ignatius ; and that these seven Epistles coincided in title and sub- 
stance with those we now possess." From so little to make so 
much, surely the learned Reviewer must have drawn largely upon 
his own imagination. 

At page 323 the Reviewer writes : 

This appears to us very unaccountable ; and it becomes more so, when we 
consider carefully the recorded history of the Epistles of Ignatius, and endeavour 
to reconcile it with Mr. Cureton's theory. He acknowledges, as we have said, 
that they were preserved in their integrity till the time of Eusebius, who has 
described them in his "Ecclesiastical History," written about A. D. 330 ; but 
within thirty years after Eusebius wrote, they were interpolated (such is Mr. 
Cureton's conjecture), so as to assume at least twice their original bulk. 

I must confess that I was much surprised when I first read 
this passage, in which I am stated to "acknowledge" what I 
never even thought of, and to be the author of a "conjecture" 
which never once occurred to me. I have never said that the 
Epistles were preserved in their integrity till the time of Euse- 
bius ; nor have I ever conjectured " that within thirty years after 
he wrote they were interpolated so as to assume at least twice 
their original bulk." I regret that I should have expressed my- 
self so indistinctly as to have afforded scope for any one to 
draw such an inference. I have already observed, that had I been 
imprudent enough to make such an acknowledgment, or to utter 
such a conjecture, and it had proved to be altogether erroneous, 
this would only have been an indication of my own want of 
judgment, but it would not have affected the question as to the 
interpolations themselves. The Reviewer, however, seems deter- 
mined to take this for granted ; and then endeavours to build an 



40 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



argument thereon, when he returns to the subject, at page 324, in 
the following words : — 

And, further, let us observe the particular period in which this interpolation 
is imagined by Mr. Cureton to have taken place. It is in the interval between 
A.D. 330 and A.D. 360, or, at the latest, before A.D. 446, the year in which 
Theodoret wrote his Eranistes, in which they are largely cited ; that is, pre- 
cisely in the most brilliant period of Ecclesiastical literature ; the age of Euse- 
bius, of Jerome, one of whom lived till A.D. 340, and the other died A.D. 
420, aged 91 ; and both of whom have given a detailed account of these Epistles ; 
the age of Chrysostom, of the Gregories, of Basil, of Cyril ; the age of Church 
historians, of Biblical commentators, of libraries, of museums, and of schools. 
Could the works of the venerable Ignatius have been so altered by addition, as 
Mr. Cureton supposes : and, even if no Eusebius or Jerome came forth to de- 
fend the writings of Ignatius, which they themselves had described, is it credi- 
ble that no single voice should have been raised in that learned and stirring 
age, to restore the holy Martyr to himself? 

I have already remarked that there are several variations in the 
passages cited by Eusebius, from the "received text." I will 
proceed now to examine those quoted 116 years later, according 
to the Reviewer's dates, by Theodoret. In the Epistle to the 
Smyrneans, in the well-known passage commencing Ei? larpog, 
fc.r.A..*, comprised in three lines and a half of Mr. Jacobson's edi- 
tion, we find the following variations : Medicean Text, ev <rapKi 
'yevofxevog ®eog ; Theodoret, ev avOpcoiroj &ebg ; Med. ev adavaroo ; 
Theod. ev davano, adding, also, 'Irjcrovs Xptvrog o Kvpiog rjjxav. In 
the same Epistle, in a passage of four lines, besides two slight 
variations f, Med. 'Iva rco iradei to vhcop KadapL&r}; Theod. iva to 
dvrjTov tj/jLcov Kadapio-dtj. X In another, from the same, of three lines, 
cited by Theodoret, there are six variations from the Medicean text. 
In five lines from the Epistle to the Trallians§, quoted by him, 
there are six variations from the Medicean text. In two lines from 
that to the Smyrneans ||, besides the transposition of one word, and 
the addition of another, Theodoret reads, cog crapKiKcog k<u irvev- 
fxariKcog rjvcofxevogf for cog crapKiKog, Ka'nrep 7rvev/J.artKcog rjveo/mevos of 
the Medicean text. In six lines from the same Epistle 1f there are 
three variations ; one, the transposition of the word d\t]Bcog ; ano- 

* See Jacobson's edit. p. 272. Usher's Disser. p.'xvi. 

t Jacobson, p. 288. Usher ibid. p. xix. 

I Jacobson, p. 294. Usher, p. xx. § Jacobson, p. 334. Usher, p. xx. 

H Jacobson, p. 404. Usher, p. xxiii. % Jacobson, p. 400. Usher, p. xxiii. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



41 



ther, Kara Oeortjra for Kara deAy/jLa ; and the third, the omission 
of ®€ov. In another passage from the same, consisting* of four 
lines, there are four variations, one of which is the omission of 
/me, and another, o>? veKpocpopov for £>v veKpocpopog. And again, in 
seven lines from this Epistle f, as cited by Theodoret, there are 
five variations, one being the omission of fxera^v dtipicov, fxera^v 
®eov, and another of ^evofx&vov. Moreover, it is to be remarked, 
that the last-mentioned passages are said by Theodoret to be from 
the Epistle to the Romans; but in the " received text" they are 
found in that to the Smyrneam.X 

Thus I have examined the passages from the Ignatian Epi- 
stles, which the Reviewer says are " largely cited " by Theodoret. 
They consist in all of thirty-three lines of Mr. J acobson's edition, 
or about twenty-five of that of Hefele ; and in these we find more 
than twenty-five variations from the Medicean text, and some of 
them very considerable. To what extent, then, may we reasonably 
calculate that the difference between the " received text," and that 
of the copy made use of by Theodoret must have amounted in 
the whole collection of these Epistles ? I leave the choice to the 
Reviewer to select which he pleases as most correct and genuine — 
the copy of Theodoret, or the " received text." How far the notice 
of these Epistles by Eusebius and Jerome corresponds with a 
" detailed account," may be judged from what has been said 
already. 

The Reviewer calls this " precisely the most brilliant period of 
Ecclesiastical literature" — "the age of Chrysostom, of the Grego- 
ries," (Gregory Thaumaturgus had been dead at least sixty years), 
" of Basil, of Cyril." He does not tell us which Cyril, of Jeru- 
salem or of Alexandria, although both flourished within the 
period which he specifies, and each well deserved to be distinctly 
mentioned. Neither has he said one word respecting the man 
whose opinion, of all others, would perhaps be of the most weight 
in the present question — Epiphanius. Is this because I have 
stated, as others have done before me, that we can scarcely avoid 
concluding that these Epistles must have been unknown, in their 
present form, to Epiphanius, who wrote about this time, or he 

* Jacobson, p. 406. Usher, p. xxiii. t Jacobson, p. 406. Usher, p. xxv. 
+ See Usher, p. xxiii. 



42 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

would hardly have failed to bring forward their authority against 
various heresies which he refutes ? 

But to return to the venerable Fathers whose names the Re- 
viewer brings under our notice. Chrysostom, as he himself ob- 
serves, "delivered a panegyric on Ignatius*;" and in that he 
quotes some words of this holy Martyr, and in another place he 
has cited a second passage : the former is from the Epistle to the 
Romans, and the latter from that to Polycarp, and both from the 
Greek text as it corresponds with the Syriac version t : but he has 
cited no words from any other of the Ignatian Epistles, or from 
any part of these which the Syriac does not recognise, and which 
doubtless are spurious. Not one of the rest of those great 
men whom the Reviewer has singled out for especial notice has 
ever said a word respecting this holy Martyr, or cited a passage 
from his Letters, excepting Basil, who I alludes to one passage 
from the Epistle to the Ephesians, which is also found in the Syriac ; 
but in this he appears to have followed Origen, who quoted it 
before him, or perhaps Theophilus of Antioch, if Bishop Pearson 
be right in attributing to him a Commentary on St. Matthew. § 
To use the Reviewer's words and argument, " Could the works of 
the venerable Ignatius have been so unknown and so neglected, 
that none of these Fathers should have mentioned them ? Is it 
credible that no single voice should have been raised, in that 
learned and stirring age, to restore the holy Martyr to himself," 
and urge his justly-acknowledged authority ? 

The Reviewer tells us this was "the age of Church Historians." 
We have already spoken of Eusebius, who only lived during ten 
years of this period. The next in order is Philostorgius : his 
history has unfortunately perished. Then comes Socrates, who 
vouchsafes further information respecting Ignatius, which we do 
not gather from any of his predecessors ; namely, that this holy 
Martyr was the first to institute choral singing in the churches, in 
imitation of a choir of angels, whom he had seen in a vision 
chaunting in heaven. || Then follow Sozomen and Theodoret 

* This is given by Paissel at the beginning of the second volume of his 
edition of the Apostolic Fathers. 

t See Pearson's Vindiciaj, p. 9. X Ibid. p. 5. 

§ Ibid. p. 4. II Soc.Eccl. Hist. Book 6. ch. 8. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



43 



himself. It is not necessary for me to offer any remarks upon 
the merit of these " Church Historians : " the extent of their 
works is well known. I only observe that they amount, even if 
we include Rufnnus, the translator of Eusebius, to no more than 
six* during a period of 116 years, according to the Reviewer's 
calculation, and that at least half of them were accused of much 
more dangerous heresy than other writers whose heterodoxy the 
Reviewer so strongly reprobates; and consequently, if his own 
theory be correct, they have probably given but mutilated ac- 
counts, f He tells us, further, this was the age of " Libraries, of 
Museums, and of Schools." Respecting Ecclesiastical museums 
I confess my entire ignorance. The learned Bingham X has given 
some account of schools and libraries : concerning the former he 
has not much to say. Of libraries he tells us that Alexander, 
Bishop of J erusalem, built one in that city in the third century ; 
that Julius Africanus founded another at Caesarea, which was 
augmented by Pamphilus, who also had a collection of books of 
his own, as likewise had J erome. Another library is mentioned, 
belonging to the Church of Cirta Julia, in Numidia. In the fol- 
lowing ages, he notices that the library of the Church of Hippo was 
mentioned by St. Augustine, and observes that the "author of the 
Pontifical, if any credit may be given to him, ascribes the building 
of two to Pope Hilary, near the baptistery of the Lateran Church." 
Baronius also speaks of a library of George, Bishop of Alexandria, 
in the year 362. § These appear to be all the libraries ac- 
cessible during the period specified, of which any account 
had reached the learned Bingham ; but the Reviewer seems to 
have furnished almost every town with a library, a museum, and 
a school ; and, what is of more consequence for his cause, almost 
every Episcopal Church at least with a copy of the Epistles of 
St. Ignatius, to be kept in their " archives," under the charge of 

* Athanasius, who wrote the life of St. Anthony, and Palladius, who has 
given an account of the monks of Egypt and Palestine, in his Lausiaca, can 
scarcely be classed as " Church Historians." 

t " If he was a heretic he was likely to be an epitomist." Reviewer, p. 330. 

\ See Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book viii. ch. vii. sect. xii. 

§ See " A Critical and Historical account of all the celebrated libraries, 
by a Gentleman of the Temple." 12mo. London, 1739, p. 73. 



44 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



the " Church officers/' as the " sealed books of common prayer " in 
our own cathedrals, in the custody of the Deans and Chapters. 

But there were other schools in those days ; and, if we may 
judge from the nature of the employment there, in all probabi- 
lity libraries connected with them, concerning which neither 
Bingham nor Lomeier*, to whom he refers for further instruction 
on this subject, have given any account, not having had the means 
of obtaining information respecting them. But I will men- 
tion them, because they might have been instrumental in pre- 
serving the Syriac version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius in their 
original uncorrupted form. I mean the schools in Mesopotamia, 
and particularly at Edessa ; and amongst these the famous school, 
called the Persian School t, to which Christians came from Persia 
to study theology and the Syriac language. Epiphaniust refers to 
this before the end of the fourth century. Here Maanes studied at 
the commencement of the fifth century, and employed himself in 
the task of translation. Amongst other works, he rendered from 
the Greek into the Syriac the Commentaries of Theodoras of 
Mopsuesta, by which he acquired great fame.§ Rabulas, Bishop 
of Edessa, also translated into Syriac some of the writings of his 
friend Cyril of Alexandria. || Indeed, in the schools at Edessa, 
Nisibis, and in the monasteries in the neighbourhood, most of the 
Syriac translations of the Fathers of the Church, in the collection 
now belonging to the British Museum, seem to have been made, 
as it is quite certain that they were written there. 

I have nothing to do with the remaining part of the Reviewer's 
paragraph, at page 325, as it does not concern matters of fact, 
but of opinion only. I would observe, however, that he writes as 
if he thought that books were almost as plentiful, and as easy to 
be procured in the fourth and fifth centuries, as they are in the pre- 

* See De Bibliothecis Liber singularis, auctore Jo. Lomeiero. l2mo. Zutph. 
1669. 

t See the life of Alexander Acoemetes, in Acta Sanctorum 1 5 Janr. Vol. i. 
p. 1023. Assemani Bibliotheca Orientalis, torn. i. p. 204. 

% See Epiphanius, Heeres. 66. edit. Petav. Vol. i. p. 629. Assemani Bibl. 
Orient. Vol.i. p. 351. 

§ See Assemani, ibid. Vol. iii. p. 378. 

|| One of the works translated by him is in the British Museum, No. 14,557. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



45 



sent day ; that controversialists were as ready to start up as he 
has been to hasten to this discussion ; and that forgeries and mis- 
statements would be as quickly detected as they are in the nine- 
teenth century. There was, indeed, one person who wrote a par- 
ticular treatise on the subject of forgeries and falsifications towards 
the end of the fourth century, Amphilochius, Bishop * of Iconium ; 
but, unfortunately, almost every thing that he wrote has perished. 
Was it the information which his friends Basil and Gregory of 
Nyssa obtained from this work that prevented them from ever 
making use of the interpolated Letters of St. Ignatius ? 

In the same page the Reviewer brings forward what he terms, 
" a very strong argument in favour of the received Greek text of 
Ignatius, in the remarkable fact, that, of those writers who have 
questioned its genuineness, scarcely two hold the same opinion con- 
cerning it." But this does not seem likely much to advance his cause. 
All who have " questioned its genuineness" have held the same opi- 
nion on this head — that it was not genuine, although they might 
have differed in other particulars. It is surely, therefore, too 
much for the Reviewer to state, "then Daille arose and contra- 
dicted Blondell, as Blondell had contradicted Salmasius ; but now 
Mr. Cureton f comes forward and repudiates all these opinions." 
There is, on the contrary, no contradiction whatever, but perfect 
consent : all agree as to the fact of falsification and interpolation, 
although they might have held some difference of opinion as to the 
period when this took place ; probably because, having been the 
work of various times, it has thus afforded the grounds for such a 
variety of opinion. For my own part, I can only say that I 
have never once, in my Preface or elsewhere, alluded to any opi- 
nion of Salmasius, Blondell, or Daille, on this point, much less 
" repudiated all these opinions ; " and I ought to forgive the 
sarcasm of the next passage, for the honour which the Reviewer 
has done me in selecting my name from among so many others to 
be mentioned on a question of criticism together with such able 



* Ilept rcov \l/evoeTrr/pa<pwv toov irapa aipeTiKois : fragmentum servatum in 
vii Synodo, actione v. See Fabricius, Bibl. Greec. Vol. 7. p. 505. 

t The Reviewer appears to be ignorant of the opinion which Whistcn has 
expressed on this subject more than a century ago. See p. 58. below. 



46 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



scholars. The Reviewer repeats what he had just before said, in 
the following words : — 

In the mean time, we beg leave to suggest, that the great discrepancies 
which prevail among those who contend against the genuineness of the received 
Epistles, ought to be admitted as a strong argument in their favour. 

Now, if this mode of reasoning be correct, let us see whither it 
must carry us. Bp. Pearson, Daille, and others, differ in opinion 
as to the period of the fabrications of the works which go under 
the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. This, therefore, " ought 
to be admitted as a strong argument in their favour : " or to come 
to more recent days, there " has been a great deal of disputing 
about " * who wrote Eikcov BcktlXiki] ; this, therefore, is " a strong 
argument in favour" of the authorship of King Charles, whose 
name this book bears. 

At page 326 the Reviewer continues in the following words : — 

It may here, indeed, be objected, in support of Mr. Cureton's hypothesis, 
that a similar interpolation to that which he has supposed, has actually taken 
place, according to our own shewing; for, from the year 1557 to 1646, when 
the edition of Vossius first appeared, the Ignatian Epistles were known to the 
world only in that interpolated form in which they are found in the two MSS. 
of Augsburg and Caspar Nydpryck. But we reply, that the difference be- 
tween this interpolation and that imagined by Mr. Cureton, is only, in truth, 
another proof that the interpolation alleged by him is no interpolation at all. 
For how do we prove the former to be an interpolation ? Mainly, from the 
fact, that none of the matter by which it differs from the received Greek text, 
can be shewn- to have been quoted by any author before the sixth century. 
It was, therefore, unknown to the first five centuries after Christ. 

If this argument be worth any thing — but I confess I do not 
hold its value to be very considerable — it makes entirely for the 
cause of the Syriac version, and shews the Medicean text to be 
interpolated. " For, (to use the Reviewer's own words,) how do 
we prove the latter to be an interpolation? Mainly from the 
fact, that none of the matter by which it differs from the Syriac text 
can be shewn to have been quoted by any author before the fourth 
century. It was, therefore, unknown to the first three centuries." 
The next sentence, in which the Reviewer speaks of "passages 
which are not found in the Syriac," will be considered in the 
sequel. The paragraph terminates with these words — 

* Bishop Burnet's History of his own time : quoted by Todd in the title- 
page of his Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



47 



The difference between the longer Greek copy and the shorter, and that 
between the shorter and the Syriac, was unknown to the first five centuries ; 
and the same argument which proves the former to be an interpolated work, 
shews the latter to be an epitome. 

I do not understand this passage myself, and leave it, therefore, 
for the readers' consideration. I will only observe, that there is no 
evidence whatever for the existence either of the Longer or Shorter 
Greek copies for two centuries after the death of St. Ignatius. 
No one after Poly carp, who spoke of the Letter addressed to him- 
self, has ever mentioned the names of these Epistles till the time of 
Eusebius; and all that had been cited as from Ignatius, before 
that period, belongs to the Syriac recension. 
In the next sentence he continues — 
And here we are led to observe, that Mr. Cureton has, most fortunately for the 
sake of Ignatius, appended extracts from various other Syriac MSS. in the Tattam 
collection, to his Syriac version of the three Epistles, derived from two MSS. 

I merely quote this passage as an admission, on the Reviewer's 
part, of the weakness of his own cause ; that he would have 
found some difficulty to make out a case, if the question of the 
Syriac version had been left simply to its own merits, and I had 
not, " most fortunately for the sake of Ignatius, appended these ex- 
tracts." But these extracts, it will be seen, have really nothing 
whatever to do with the question, because the authors by whom 
they are cited lived more than a century after the period at which 
it seems certain the Ignatian Epistles must have assumed very 
nearly the form in which they are found in the Medicean text ; and 
they are evidently cited from the interpolated recension, which 
appears to have been common in the fifth and sixth centuries. I 
have spoken of this in my Preface. My object in giving these 
extracts was to lay before the public every thing that I found in 
this Syriac collection in any way respecting St. Ignatius. 

A little further, the Reviewer writes that one of these extracts 
" is, in fact, another Syriac version of one of the Epistles." Here 
we see the reason for the change of the definite for the indefinite 
article at the commencement of his paper. But why did not the 
Reviewer state, for the benefit of his readers, of which Epistle 
there is "another Syriac version," and how it came into the place 
where it is found ? But I will explain this matter for him. It is 
a part of the Epistle to the Romans, usually inserted in the acts of 



48 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW , 

the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, of which I have spoken at p. ix. of 
my Preface. It belongs to a totally different class of MSS., is 
written in a Nestorian hand, on paper of about the eleventh or twelfth 
century*, and was evidently translated, together with the acts of 
martyrdom, at a much later period. Copies of this martyrdom, 
and the Epistle to the Romans inserted in it, have also been 
translated into Coptic.f The Reviewer again manifests a degree 
of courage, which to me appears almost unaccountable, when 
he says "that this other Syriac version does not correspond 
with Mr. Cureton's Syriac version, but it does correspond with the 
Greek." It is a coarse translation, made by some one who does 
not appear to have well understood the Greek ; and, according to 
my notion of the word, corresponds neither with the Syriac nor the 
Greek. In the first line of the Inscription it reads, magnified in 
the greatness of the most high, for pitied in the greatness of the 
Father most high, of both Greek and Syriac. In the third line it 
adds God, which is not found in the Greek; in the fourth it 
omits our God, after Jesus Christ, of the Greek ; in the fifth it 
has nothing to correspond with xwpiov, &c. In the second line of 
the Epistle it adds, in the body, which is not found in the Greek ; 
and so on. But in two places it confirms the reading Xpiarovo/jLog 
for Xpio-Ttovv/uios, according to the Syriac, and the Christi habens 
legem of the Latin version of the English MSS. ; and also, again 
am I voice, of the Syriac, and rursus f actus sum vox, of the same 
Latin version, instead of the evidently corrupt reading in the 
Greek, traKiv eao/nat Tpeyiov.X Nor is the statement which the 
Reviewer has made, that "all" the other extracts which I have 
given, " accurately correspond with the Greek Text/' at all more 
correct. I will not trouble my readers by pointing out the seve- 
ral variations, which perhaps, after what has been said, they 
will not think necessary, but I refer them to the notes to my 



* Mr. Forshall, in the Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, 
attributes this MS. to the thirteenth century : Codex hombycinus forma? 
quartse majoris admodum mutilus .... sseculo ut videtur decimo tertio. 
(Cod. 7200. Rich.) See Cat. Codd. MSS. Orientt. pars. 1 . p. 92. 

t See Assemani Bibl. Orient. Vol. i. p. 618. 

X See a note on this passage in my book, p. 94. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



49 



volume, in which I have mentioned some of these differences, and 
beg them to make the comparison for themselves. 
The Reviewer continues — 

What, then, is the age and authority of these extracts ? Happily this 
question is readily answered. Some of them are taken, as their title shews, 
from the works of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, and of Timotheus, Bishop 
of Alexandria. Severus hecame Bishop of Antioch in A.D. 513, and Timotheus 
was raised to the See of Alexandria in A.D. 519, and died A.D. 535 ; so that 
these passages were quoted before the middle of the sixth century. 

Now, inasmuch as there have been no less than three Patriarchs 
of Alexandria, who bore the name of Timotheus,* in the course of 
about sixty years, the Reviewer would have done well to examine 
the matter before he decided to which of the three the extracts in 
question belong, so as to found any argument thereon. They cer- 
tainly do not appertain to "Timotheus Asterius," whom he has 
fixed upon, as it is evident from a statement of faith sent by this 
author to the Emperor Leo f, who had been dead about five and forty 
years before Timotheus Asterius was raised to the Patriarchate. % 

In page 327 the Reviewer writes — 

It is clear, therefore, (because quoted by Severus in his Sermons) that the 
Greek recension which we now possess of the Ignatian Epistles was received as 
genuine in the Church of Ignatius himself in the sixth century ; and that the 
Syriac version now offered to us as " representing most nearly what Ignatius 
wrote," was not known there as such at that period. And it may similarly be 
shewn, from the citations of Timotheus, that it was not received at Alexandria 
any more than at Antioch ; and therefore it is highly probable that it did not 
exist so early as the beginning of the sixth century. 

Although the Syriac language, as well as the Greek, was still 
spoken at Antioch in the time of Severus, all the sermons of that 
Patriarch, and his other works, so far as we know, were written 
in the latter : he would hardly, therefore, cite a " Syriac version." 
The shorter interpolated Greek recension, as I have already ob- 
served, appears not to have been uncommon at that period, although 
there is a difference worth remarking between the passages that 
Severus cites, and those which answer to them in the " received 



* See L'Art de Verifier les dates, Vol. i. pp. 234. 236. 240. 
t See Add. MS. 12,156. fol. 62. 
% See ibid, p. 404. 

E 



50 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

text." Nay, even Severus himself points out the circumstance of 
the existence of different and older copies than that which he 
seems generally to have used, if not of different recensions, when 
he writes, in the extract from his book against Grammaticus, at 
p. 29 : " Permit me to be an imitator of the sufferings of my 
God." But it is found in other copies than these, which are rather 
older, thus : " Permit ye me to be a disciple of the sufferings of 
my God." The "Syriac version" was scarcely likely to be known 
at Alexandria, where that language was altogether foreign. 

But before dismissing this subject, I will observe that, if the Re- 
viewer's argument be good with respect to one Patriarch of Antioch, 
and one recension of the Ignatian Epistles, it must also hold good 
with respect to another Patriarch of Antioch, and another recension 
of the Ignatian Epistles. Among several who have cited the Longer 
interpolated Epistles in the sixth century, is Anastasius, Patriarch of 
Antioch.* To apply the Reviewer's argument, " it is clear, there- 
fore, that the Longer Greek recension, which we now possess, of the 
Ignatian Epistles, was received as genuine in the Church of Igna- 
tius himself in the sixth century, and that the Shorter recension 
was not known there at that period." 

At page 328 there is a passage not very clear : I therefore, for 
the sake of illustration, place in juxta-position with it another 
oc curing at page 339. 

We do not now say that interpola- Let us here ohserve, hy the way, 

as a general proposition, that omission 
appears to us much more probable, 
a priori, than interpolation ; and that 
there is, therefore, an abstract greater 
verisimilitude that the Syriac should 
be an abridged text than the Greek 
an interpolated one. 

The Reviewer, I suppose, intends from this to draw an argument 
from probability. I will not stop to examine with what success, 
as it is my purpose to deal only with facts, and not with proba- 
bilities. According to the Reviewer's own confession, we have one 
instance of interpolation in the Longer recension of these very 
Ignatian Epistles ; and if the authorities which I have given in the 



Hon in the one case, or omission in 
in the other, was per se probable, a 
priori ; but supposing it to be so, we 
do affirm, that omission in the Syriac 
was more probable than interpolation 
in the Greek. 



* See Archbp. Usher's Dissertation, p. xxxiii. 



"RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



5) 



Appendix, and even Bishop Pearson * himself be not mistaken in 
their criticism, we have another instance of interpolation even in 
the Shorter recension of the same Epistles. In the case, there- 
fore, under our immediate consideration, the truth of facts seems to 
preponderate, rather than the " verisimilitude " of probability. 
In the same page the Reviewer writes — 

Translation is a laborious work : it is very irksome, as St. Jerome says, to 
speak " alieno stomacho non suo and to translate many passages similar to 
each other might seem, perhaps, to be as needless as the introduction of them 
would certainly have been. We think, therefore, that omission in the Syriac 
was more probable than insertion in the Greek. 

However "laborious a work" translation may be, surely the 
task of translating these three Epistles, which altogether do not 
amount to so much as some of St. Paul's single Epistles, could not 
have been very great, nor in any way worthy of being compared 
with the labour of Jerome, who, besides rendering the whole of 
the Scriptures from their original languages into Latin, translated 
also several other important and extensive works from the Greek. 
But to say nothing of this, I think any one, who will trouble him- 
self to examine into the matter, will agree with me, that it must 
have been a far more laborious and difficult task to make such an 
abridgment from "the received Greek text" as these Syriac 
Epistles exhibit, than to have translated them entirely through and 
through. The Reviewer, in a later part of his article, wishes to 
shew that it is an epitome, made by design for heretical purposes, 
and, consequently, requiring much diligence and attention: in 
this place he endeavours to account for it being an abridgment, on 
the ground of avoiding trouble and labour. This brings me 
to another statement made by him. 

But Mr. Cureton affirms that we know " no instances of such abridgment in 
any Christian writer," whereas, he alleges, the examples of interpolation are 
very numerous. 

I know not what right the Reviewer, or any other person, has 
to take my words and put upon them his own peculiar construc- 
tion, and give them his own emphasis. I wrote the passage, 



* See p. 18 above. 



52 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



"no instances of such abridgment;" and I think that any single- 
minded person, and for such only I wished to write, could hardly 
have failed, if he must make any thing emphatic, to read it, " no 
instances of such abridgment," the peculiar nature of which, if it 
could be an abridgment, I had spoken of previously. This, 
therefore, renders it needless for me to make any remark relative 
to the Reviewer's notion of a Latin abridgment of the Apocryphal 
Epistle attributed to St. Barnabas, or of his strange idea of the 
" suppression of the Gospel of St. John," by certain heretics, 
being an " effectual abridgment." 

But I think I ought not to pass over the following words of the 
Reviewer, although they do not materially affect my present argu- 
ment, further than to give my readers caution not to place too 
much reliance upon any passage cited apart from the context. 

He must pardon us for believing, that what happened frequently to profane 
writings, might sometimes happen to Christian ones. Our historical and critical 
readers will remember the words of the immortal Casaubon, in his famous 
Dedication of his Polybius to Henry IV. of France, concerning the treatment 
of classical authors by Byzantine literati : " accessit pestis alia compendiorum 
et epitomamm confectio, quod genus scriptionis ut ad privatum conficientium 
usum non parvas utilitates habeat, ita publice noxium et magnis scriptoribus 
semper fuit exitiosissimum." And if such epitomes were so common of histo- 
rical works, were they never made of theological ? 

For my part, I had no recollection of the passage of Casaubon 
just cited: perhaps I might never have read it before ; at any rate, I 
had forgotten it. But I, nevertheless, strongly suspected, from the 
place where it occurred, that it could have but very little reference to 
the subject before us. I had, therefore, the curiosity to turn to the 
place ; and to save such of my readers as may be unwilling to take 
this trouble for themselves, I give here the result of my search, which 
I cannot do better than in quoting Casaubon's own words : "Sic Con- 
" stantinus Porphyrogenitus, memorati Leonis, uti reor, films, quum 
" animadverteret et historicorum scriptorum numerum innumerum 
" circumferri, adeo ut multi sua astate voluntatem cognoscendi res 
" gestas simul cum spe abjicerent tot volumina unquam perle- 
" gendi ; conquisitis undique maxima cura et diligentia omnibus 
" ejus generis auctoribus, qui poterant adhuc in Grseciaa et Orientis 
" Bibliothecis reperiri, corpus historicum prascepit concinnari, in 
" partes ceu communes locos LI 1 1 t ributum, quod Politicis homi- 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



53 



" nibus rerum ipsis cognitu necessariarum Thesaurum quendam 

" insestiruabilein, et ut ille ait, pransum paratum exhiberet 

" Sed crederetne aliquis ipsum illud consilium, quod a Principe 
" esset profectuni Historiaa arnantissimo, inter praecipuas causas 
" Historiee perdendae fuisse? atqui ita evenit tamen. Nam ubi 
u semel Corpus illud historicum in Politicorum usum ab eo con- 
" cinnatum, versari in manibus hominum est ccep turn ; e vestigio 
" nobilissimi quique Historias scriptores antiquiores, (ex talibus 
*f utique flores illi fuerant decerpti) pristinam suam dignationem 
" amiserunt ; et monumenta seternitati consecrata, tot nobilium in- 
" geniorum, ubi desita sunt legi, etiam describi, quod erat necesse, 
" desierunt: Accessit et pestis alia, etc." It appears, therefore, 
that the passage cited may refer as much to "Christian writings" 
as to " profane ones," but that it can hardly apply to this Syriac 
version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, which must have been 
made nearly four centuries before. Constantine Porphyrogenitvs 
mounted the Imperial throne of Constantinople A.D. 912*, and the 
Syriac version was transcribed soon after A.D. 500. It would 
have been more to the Reviewer's purpose to have mentioned the 
epitome of the Clementines, given together with both the recensions 
of the Ignatian Epistles, by Coleterius, in his JPatres Apostolici, 
the summary of Epiphanius' Panarium, the epitome of the Divine 
Institutions of Lactantius, or of the history of Philostorgius made 
by Photius, with various other epitomes of " Theological works," 
which it would not be difficult to specify. 

I have hitherto given the reader several opportunities of seeing 
the learned Reviewer's powers of making the most of his mate- 
rials : I come now to shew his skill in diminution. In page 330 
he writes — 

But we are assured by Mr. Cureton, that all the passages cited from the Igna- 
tian Epistles by Christian writers, to the time of Eusebius, inclusively, are 
taken from these Epistles, with the exception of one citation from the Epistle 
to the Smyrneans, of which the Syriac version has not reached us ; and that 
all the passages so cited are found in this Syriac translation. On this first 
assertion we must first observe, that the remnants of Christian antiquity of the 
second and third centuries are very scanty, and that the direct citations from 



See l'Art de Verifier les dates. Vol. i. p. 430. 



54 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



Ignatius by name in those writings do not amount in all to more than two ; 
so that no argument, either one way or the other, can justly he drawn from 
them. 

Here I must differ most widely from the learned Reviewer. 
There are three citations during this period. One by Irenseus in 
the second century, and two by Origen in the third ; and these 
are the only evidence that we have of the existence of any 
writings of St. Ignatius for a period of more than two hundred 
years. And if these have been urged in proof of the genuineness 
of a collection of seven Epistles, because these passages, cited by- 
such antient writers, are found in two of the seven, surely they 
afford much stronger evidence in favour of the genuineness of a 
collection of only three Epistles, in two of which all the passages 
so cited are found; while the third is the only Epistle that was 
ever distinctly mentioned for more than two hundred years after 
the holy Martyr's death. The case stands thus. Origen cites two 
passages from Ignatius, by name ; these are found, one in the Epi- 
stle to the Romans, the other in that to the Ephesians. Irenasus 
speaks in such terms as to leave no doubt whom he intended; 
while Eusebius* says expressly it was Ignatius, and the words 
which he quotes are also found in the Epistle to the Romans. Poly- 
carp writes that he had received a letter or letters from Ignatius. 
The Sylloge of Epistles, written in the vernacular language of St. 
Ignatius himself, recently discovered, but transcribed several cen- 
turies before any other known copy, consists of precisely these 
three Epistles, and these three only. If, therefore, this be an 
epitome of seven genuine Greek Epistles, made more than two hun- 
dred years after the " detailed description" given by Eusebius, as 
the Reviewer is anxicus to prove, this Asiatic epitomizer must not 
only have been endowed with most admirable prudence to select, 
from seven mentioned by Eusebius, precisely the only three for 
which there was any testimony in early Christian antiquity, but he 
must also have been gifted with an almost incredible degree of 



* OlSe 5e avrov ('lyvdrcov) to fxaprvpiov real 6 Klpiji/aioq, koi toov eiriaroXcov 
avrov nvrjjjLovevei Xeycov ovrm^ wq el-ire riq rcov ^fuerepoov Bia rtjv irpoq Qeov fxap- 
rvpiav xarapideU 7rpo<; dijpi'a : on <t?to<; elfxl Qeov: k.t.X. See Euseb. book 
iii. c. 36. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OE ST. IGNATIUS. 



55 



foresight and sagacity, to omit those very passages from these three 
Epistles, which European critics, more than a thousand years after- 
wards, were likely to object against as unsuited to the age and 
character of St. Ignatius. 

But Bishop Pearson has advanced a conjectural argument, which 
it has fallen in the Reviewer's purpose in this place to pass by alto- 
gether in silence. He prefaces it with these words : " Luculentissi- 
" mis hisce testimoniis tres conjecturas subjungendas putavi, ex 
" eodem saeculo petitas : quae si eruditis placeant, bene est : mihi 
" certe placent, ut conjecturae scilicet, neque alio nomine propono."* 
These three conjectures consist in apparent imitations of the words 
of Ignatius by other writers : two are taken from the Epistle of 
the Church of Smyrna relative to the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, 
and the third from a Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, 
written, as the learned Prelate supjDoses, by Theophilus, the sixth 
Bishop of Antioch. These three ako, if the allusion be certain, 
refer to two of the three Epistles of the Syriac version. The last 
of them, indeed, is so clear, that it almost amounts to a direct 
citation. The words attributed to Theophilus are, Quarto, ut 
partus ejusfalleret diabolum, putantem Jesum de uxoratd, non de 
virgine natum; to which Basil referring, according to the autho- 
rity of the same Prelate t, writes : El'pyrai tcov iraXatcov tivi koi 
erepog A070?, ort virep rov Xadeiv tov apy^ovra tov oncovos tovtov rrjv 
irapdeviav Tr\<; Mapta? rj tov 'loxrrjcp eirevotjdr] /mvrjcrreLa. The words 
of Ignatius are, "'EXadev rov clp^ovra rov alcovos tovtov rj irapdevia 
Maplaq.X These allusions or imitations of the Greek Epistles of 
St. Ignatius, all of which correspond with the Syriac, the Reviewer 
has thought it prudent to pass over altogether without notice. 
We come now to consider others, adduced by Bp. Pearson § in 
a later part of his work, and for a different purpose, which he does 
mention. 

Bishop Pearson affirms that Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, 
imitates Ignatius, as well he might do, considering his relation to the Epistles 
and to their author. Bishop Pearson cites two passages, (and to these may be 



* See Vindicise, p. 4. 
II See my edition, p. 79. 



t See YindiciEe, p. 5, 
§ See Vindicise, p. 79. 



D'6 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



added a third) in which there is apparently such an imitation : and not one of the 
parallels to these passages is found in the Syriac, but they are all in the Greek. 

I will now lay these "parallels," as pointed out by the Re- 
viewer, before the reader, and leave him to draw his own con- 
clusions. 



Polycarp. 
1. 

Tovg evei\t]/iifxevovs Tolg a^uoTrpe- 
TrecTL oW/uoTc, am a eo"Ti c^a^yuara 
tcov a\)]6a>s, k.t.X. Epist. to 
Phil. ch.l. edit. Jacobson, p. 
466. 

2. 

kcu ol evcpyfeAurafievoi 17/zas a7ro- 
crro\oL, kcu ol irpocp^rai ol irpoKrj- 
pvSavres Trjv eXevaiv rov Kv/hov. 
Ch.6. p. 478. ibid. 



Ignatius. 
1. 

eV a> ra Ber>^a rrrepicpepa), rot? 
Tnev/maTiKovs fiap^ aplrag. Epist. 
to Ephes. ch. 2. p. 280. 



2. 

kol roig Trpocpr^ag Be cCf-aTrco/jLev, 
Bia to kcu avTovs elg to eva^e- 
Xiov KdTtj^^eAKei ai, kol elg avroi 
eWfriv. Phil. ch. o. p. 380. 
ovg ovk eireio-av ai Trpopr/Teicu, 
ovBe o vofjLog Mcoa-ecog, a,\/V ovBe 
fj-ey^pi vvv to evayyeAiov. Smyrn. 
ch. 5. p. 406. 

3. 

c £lv ovBev Xavdavei v,aag y euv 
TeXelcog elg 'irjo-ovv HpiffTov e^>;re 
tt,v ttIo-tlv. Ephes. ch. 14. p. 284. 

Such are the supposed imitations by St. Polycarp of the Epistles 
of St. Ignatius which the Reviewer advances in support of his 
argument, He next proceeds — 

Again, Bishop Bull asserts, with a great show of probability, that Tertullian, 
in the second century, has translated a striking passage of Ignatius; this also is 
not in the Syriac, but is found in the Greek. 

In referring to this passage again, at page 342, the Reviewer 
writes more boldly — 

This sentence, according to Bishop Bull, was translated by Tertullian in the 
second century. 

I will now quote that learned Prelate's words, and then place 
the passages of Ignatius and Tertullian in juxta-position, and leave 



3. 

Confido enim vos bene exer- 
citatos esse in sacris Uteris, et 
nihil vos latet. Ch. 12. p. 487. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



57 



my readers to make their own comparison. " Ego autem plane 
u persuasum habeo, Tertullianum (qui ex Grsecis Ecclesiae scripto- 
" ribus multum profecit) hie respexisse et magna ex parte tran- 
" scripsisse celebrem Ignatii locum, quern ex Epistola ad Ephesios 

" supra adduximus ut GraBcum textum pcene ad 

" verbum Latine vertisse videatur Tertullianus." * 

Tertullian. 
Ita utriusque substantias cen- 
sus hominem et Deum exhibuit : 



Ignatius. 
Efc iarpog earrtv, (rapKiKoq re 
kol irvev/jLariKog, yevvyros /ecu 
ayevi')]Tos,ev (rapid r , ev6/j.evos©eos, 
ev aOavarco £a)tj a\r)6lvr], kol bk 
Mapiag /ecu e/c ®eov, irpbZrov 7ra- 
6t]rbg Kai rore awad^. Epist. to 

Ephes. ch. 7. p. 272. 



hinc natum, inde non natum ; 
hinc carneum, inde spiritualem ; 
hinc infirmum, inde praefortem ; 
hinc morientem, inde viventem. 
Qua3 proprietas conditionum, di- 
vinae et humanae, aequa utique 
naturae veritate cujusque dis- 
puncta est, eaclem fide et spiritus 
et carnis. — De came Christi, 
ch. 5. 

Having thus laid before my readers the passages in question, I 
leave it to their own judgment to decide how far that most learned 
Prelate's opinion on this point is judicious j at the same time I 
observe, that, even were the resemblance certain — were it so 
striking as to be immediately remarkable — or even did it amount 
to positive translation, if there be otherwise good grounds, from 
different sources, to suspect that the Ignatian Epistles have been 
interpolated subsequently to the time of Tertullian, there is just as 
much reason to believe that the interpolator borrowed from Ter- 
tullian, as that Tertullian borrowed from Ignatius. Besides, we 
have no evidence whatever, from any of Tertullian's writings, that 
he was at all acquainted with the Epistles of Ignatius f; and fur- 
ther, to adopt the Reviewer's peculiar mode of arguing, " is it 
probable" that he should have cited "the works of the venerable 



* Defensio Fidei Niceense. Sec. ii. cap. vii. §. 3. edit. Grabe, p. 87. 

t Daille and others have written to shew that Tertullian was ignorant of 
the existence of the Ignatian Epistles. See, De Ignatii Epist olis, cap. viii. p. 277. 



5S 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



Ignatius," without giving to his argument the additional weight 
and authority of such a name ? Moreover, this very passage, as 
we have seen above, labours under the disadvantage of conside- 
rable variations, made by every one who has cited it. I believe it 
to be a violation of every rule of true criticism, to adduce such 
imaginary and uncertain allusions as furnishing any "chronolo- 
gical data." Nothing, therefore, which the Reviewer has yet 
brought forward would in the slightest degree have affected "a 
theory which assigned the interpolation to the close of the fourth 
century," even had I propounded such a theory. Some of the 
passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians, so far as I am able to 
form any opinion, seem to have been introduced between A. D. 330 
and A. D. 360 ; and since the publication of my volume I have found 
that Whiston, who, like the learned Morin * and others, maintained 
that the shorter or Medicean text is an epitome of the longer, 
arguing upon other data, has arrived at the conclusion, that the 
shorter recension assumed its present form just at this very period. 
I quote that very learned writer's words — " And now, if, after all, 
" any one desires to know about what time in the fourth century I 
" suppose these Smaller Epistles to have been framed, I answer, 
" not till after A. D. 340, or the death of the great Eusebius, 
et during whose lifetime such ignorant heretics as.Marcellus were 
" less considerable, and yet several years before A. D. 359, when 
" they are quoted as then known by Athanasius. f 
In page 331 the Reviewer writes — 

It is also stated by Mr. Cureton that there is no internal evidence of omis- 
sions having been made in the Syriac version, that there are no gaps or rough 
places in it, and that the Epistles run smoothly on in that version in an 
equable and harmonious flow from beginning to end. — Again we are obliged to 
inquire, Is this really the case ? That which must strike every reader of these 
Epistles in the Syriac version is their abrupt conclusion. No salutations to 



* Interim tamen non est omittendum nobilem in Theologia Criticum Jo- 
hannem Morinum, collatis diversis editionibus ex Augustano et Florentino 
codicibus depromptis, in aliam plane diversam, maximeque mirandam sententiam 
incidisse. Antiqua, inquit, Ignatiarum Epistolarum editio genuinum textum 
nobis exhibet, nova verb mancum et interpolation. See Pearson's Vind. p. 1 8. 

t See Whiston's Dissertation upon the Epistles of Ignatius, in Primitive 
Christianity, Vol. i. p. 93. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



59 



friends, no adieus, no benedictions, are uttered or thought of ; but the writer 
vanishes from our sight, in a most unceremonious manner, in the midst of a 
sentence, which does not prepare us in the least for his disappearance. This is 
not the demeanor of a Christian Bishop. How different is it from the Apostolic 
Epistles, which slope gently, and softly, and sweetly, to their conclusion ! 
How different, again, from the Epistles of St. Clement, of St. Polycarp, and St. 
Barnabas ! How different from every one of the Greek Epistles of St. Ignatius ! 
Surely Mr. Cureton will allow us to observe, that there is strong evidence of 
omission here. 

I think any person reading this passage without my volume 
before him could scarcely fail to draw the conclusion that all 
the three Epistles terminated without any " salutation, or adieu/' 
while the truth of the case is that only one of them does. And 
although I might reply generally to this objection in various ways 
— that the greeting being given at the beginning of these Letters 
there is no necessity for it to be repeated at the end ; that the omis- 
sion of the valediction was not uncommon*; that, even supposing 
it to be lost, it would not arfect the question which we are con- 
sidering ; that St. Ignatius, being bound as prisoner among ten 
soldiers, of whose ill-treatment, " by sea and by land, by night and 
by day," he seems to have had such good reason to complain, might 
have been urged, interrupted, and compelled to break off before he 
could finish all that he wished to say ; — and although I may allege, 
— especially in the case of the Epistle to the Ephesians, of which 
alone of the three Letters the end can be deemed abrupt, — that this 
holy man, having been led to speak of the cross of Christ, of His 
immaculate conception by the Virgin frustrating the cunning of Satan, 
of the destruction of his antient kingdom, when the Son of God ap- 
peared as man, and of His victory even over that death, which he 
knew he himself was about so soon to suffer, might suddenly 
have closed his letter in the transport of zeal, which this prospect 
excited — Although any one of these reasons may be sufficient to 
account for such abruptness; — and although it is quite unnecessary 
to seek for any such reasons if the fact itself be established; I 



* The omission of the valediction could not denote any want of regard or 
respect, for it is not added to any one of the Epistles of Pliny to Trajan, who 
lived at this very period. 



60 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



would rather refer my readers to the concluding words of two 
Epistles, all of which must be familiar to them, and leave them 
then to judge how the Reviewer's arguing applies. " Brethren, if 
any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him 
know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his 
way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of 
sins : " St. James, v. 20. " This is true God and eternal life. 
Little children, keep yourselves from idols : " 1 John v. 21 . Shall 
we add here the Reviewer's words? " No salutations to friends, 
no adieus, no benedictions, are uttered or thought of, but the writer 
vanishes from our sight in a most unceremonious manner, in the 
midst of a sentence which does not prepare us in the least for his 
disappearance. This is not like the demeanour of a Christian 
Bishop. How different is it from the Apostolic Epistles which 
slope gently and softly and sweetly to their conclusion ! " 
The Reviewer proceeds, p. 332 — 

But to turn from the end of the Epistles to the body of them. Mr. Cureton 
says that by the removal of the passages in the Greek, which are not found in 
the Syriac, " not only no obscurity is caused, nor the tenor of the Epistles 
broken, but, on the contrary, several places which before were unintelligible, 
become now clear, the whole Epistle runs on uninterruptedly, each sentence 
adheres closely to what precedes it." Let us test this assertion by one or two 
trials. In the Syriac version of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read the fol- 
lowing words : — " Blessed is he who hath given you such a Bishop as this, as ye 
deserve. But because love suffereth me not to be silent from you, for this rea- 
son I have been forward to beg of you that ye will be diligent in the will of 
God." — p. 13. We examine the preceding part of the Epistle as it stands in 
the Syriac in quest of any paragraphs in which the writer "has been forward" 
to beg of them to be thus diligent, but in vain : we do not find there a single 
word to this effect ! But let us now turn to the Greek text. There we do find 
the very admonitions which we have been seeking for in the Syriac to no pur- 
pose. He exhorts them there "to be united in the same mind, and in 
the same judgment, and to submit to their Bishops and Presbyters." 

Before making any other remarks upon this passage, I am sorry 
to be obliged again to observe that the Reviewer here also has 
taken the liberty of altering my words. I wrote, " each sentence 
adheres closely to that which precedes it," namely, sentence. But 
the Reviewer has represented my words, " closely to what precedes 
it," referring it to the matter of the Epistle ; and this change is 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



61 



essential to his argument, which is not founded, upon any want of 
coherence in the consecutive sentences, but in the supposed omis- 
sion of some " admonitions" from the Syriac, which the Reviewer 
professes to have found in the Greek, but not in the foregoing 
sentence, or even that which precedes it, but in another chapter. 
A similar observation may be made with respect to the change in 
my words of " the Bishop," to " their Bishop," with reference to the 
Reviewer's statement that there are no " anti-Aerian assertions of 
episcopal power, as opposed to the presbyteral" in the Letters of 
Ignatius. But inasmuch as this does not affect the subject before us, 
I have passed it by without further notice ; for any one who chooses 
may read the description of the heresy of Aerius, as given by Epi- 
phanius, and compare it with the tenor of the Ignatian Epistles, for 
himself. But to return to our subject. 

The words in the Syriac, h!^ f Q i even when rendered by 

me into English as literally as I could, " I have been forward 
to beg," surely need signify nothing more than a forwardness 
on the writer's mind to express what he was about to say, without 
waiting for any request or solicitation to do so on the part of 
those to whom he was writing. And if the Reviewer did not un- 
derstand the meaning of my translation, nor of the Syriac, he 
might, if he had chosen to do so, have turned to the original 
words in the Greek, in that part of my volume in which I had 
given the Greek text of the three Epistles " as they correspond 
with the Syriac version."* He would there have seen that 
they correspond with irpce\aj3ov irapctKaXeTvf, which he has trans- 
lated, in the page before, " I have taken upon me to exhort you ; " 
and, if the translation of the long passage at pp. 316, 317 be his 
own, " I have forestalled you to exhort you." The exact transla- 
tion would be, I have anticipated to exhort you ; and these words 
can only apply to the following sentence, onrtoq awrpe^re rrj ^vco/uirj, 
rod ®eov, and not to any thing whatever which precedes. More- 
over, I cannot believe that the Syriac translator, if he were a de- 



* See p. 172. 

t The learned Reviewer would scarcely have advanced such an argument, 
if he had turned to consult the original Greek. 



62 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

ceitful epitomizer, designing to favour some heretical purpose, as 
the Reviewer supposes, would have been so foolish as to leave, in a 
subsequent part of his work, a direct allusion to what he had been at 
the pains previously to omit. Further, there is a passage similar to 
this, and in all probability copied from it, in the Epistle to the 
Magnesians, which runs thus : " Knowing the well-ordered (state) 
of your love according to God, rejoicing, I have fore-chosen (ypoei- 
\6jurjv) in the faith of Jesus Christ, to speak to you." — To use 
the Reviewer's own words, " We examine the preceding part of the 
Epistle as it stands in the Greek, in quest of any paragraphs in 
which the writer has fore-chosen to speak to them, but in vain." 
It is the first sentence of the Epistle after the salutation. 
The author continues in the next place — 

In the same Epistle we read, in the Syriac version, as follows : — " Those 
things which ye have done in the body, even they are spiritual, because ye have 
done every thing in Jesus Christ, and ye are prepared for the building of God 
the Father, and ye are raised on high by the engine of Jesus Christ, which is 
the cross." — p. 1 3. — The bold metaphor here used appears to us to be very 
abruptly introduced ; but if we refer to the Greek, we find it softened and 
qualified, as follows : " Ye are the stones of the Temple of the Father, pre- 
pared for the building of God, raised to high places by the engine of Jesus 
Christ, which is the Cross. 

In this place most of my readers will perhaps agree with me, 
that it is a much bolder metaphor, to call men stones, than to say 
that they are prepared for the building of God, an expression more 
than once made use of by St. Paul.* It is true that St. Peter, in 
employing the same metaphor, makes use of the word stones, but 
only by way of comparison, " Ye also, as lively stones, are built up 
a spiritual house." t But I cannot dismiss this objection of the 
Reviewer without quoting here the words of a most learned writer, 
who had taken great pains to investigate the question of the Igna- 
tian Epistles, on this very sentence. " Hear another passage in the 
" smaller, which presently follows : Bvo-avres ra cora, elg to /xj) nvapa- 
" Set-ao-dai ra crireipo/jLeva vtt avrcov, a>? orres Xidoi vaov Trarpos : Obstru- 
" entes aures, ad non recipere seminata ab ipsis, ut existentes lapides 
" templi Patris. This seems an ill-contrived abridgment of a noble 



* 1 Cor. iii. 9. 2 Cor. v. i. 



t 1 Pet. ii. 5. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



63 



" context in the Larger ; and by introducing men stopping their ears, 
" that they may not hear what is sowed by hereticks, as being stones 
" of the temple of God, does so jumble together inconsistent meta- 
" phors, that one cannot, without great injustice, ascribe it to so 
" great a man as Ignatius."* 

In page 333 the Reviewer continues — 

Again, in the same Epistle, we find the words, — " Let us he imitators of our 
Lord in gentleness, and t who rather may he injured and unjustly used and 
defrauded : not that the promise is the deed, unless that in the power of faith 
a man may he found faithful even to the end." — These words as they here 
stand seem to us very enigmatical. What promise is that of which he speaks ? 
Consult the Greek, and all which is here ohscure hecomes clear, and what is 
abrupt becomes smooth. — "Let us endeavour to he imitators of our Lord. 
Who can he injured, who he defrauded, who can he set at naught more than 
He was ? " — Then follow three short chapters in the same strain, and in a 
fourth the author goes on to say, — " No one who professes faith is guilty of sin ; 
no one hates who possesses charity. The tree is manifest from its fruit, so 
they who profess to he Christians shall he proved hy their deeds : for the work 
lies not in the profession, hut in the power of faith, if they be found stedfast 
unto the end." 

It does not belong to the object which I have before me to criti- 
cise the Reviewer's version of these passages. If the English literal 
translation from the Syriac appear " enigmatical," why did he not 
here also turn to consult the Greek text as I have printed it " as it cor- 
responds with the Syriac" ? And why did he make no observation 
upon the following note on this passage at p. 91 of my volume : 
" There is nothing in the Syriac to correspond with vvv of the 
" shorter edition of the Greek, which seems to have been intro- 
" duced from a miscomprehension of the sense of the passage, 
" rendered obscure by the long interpolation preceding. The 
" sense in the Syriac is very plain. — 1 But let us be imitators of our 
" ' Lord in meekness, and in our readiness to undergo injuries and 
" i suffering ; for the profession of faith is nothing unless we con- 
" ' tinue stedfast in the practice of it to the end.' — The preceding 
" passages, however, Ovb*e\s ttlgtiv eira'yyeWo/jLevog a/j.apravei — ol 



* See Whiston's Dissertation upon the Epistles of Ignatius in Primitive 
Christianity, p. 24. 

t The Reviewer again has omitted here the word " that," and also added the 
word " faithful." 



64 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

" eira^eWo/uLevoi ~K.pi<TTLavol eivai, <$i' iov TrpaacovfTiv 6(pdrj(rovTai, 
" express this meaning, and seem to be nothing more than a para- 
" phrase of the words Ov <yap €Tra*/<ye\ta<; to ep<yov, a\X' ev Swafiei 
" iriffrecac. See a similar passage in the Epistle to the Romans, 
p. 18." Why did the Reviewer omit to observe that, at the be- 
ginning of this passage in the Greek, Bishop Pearson had noted 
Locus est corruptus* , and Dr. Smith, at the end of it, Locus sane 
perplexusti These two learned men did not find, by "consulting 
the Greek, that all which is here obscure becomes clear, and what 
is abrupt becomes smooth." And why has the learned Reviewer, 
in giving his own version of this passage, omitted to take any 
account of the little particle vvv of the Greek, and nunc of the 
Latin ? 

I have perhaps said enough already to shew that the Reviewer's 
attempts to point out "omissions" and " gaps, or rough places," 
in these Epistles, as they are represented in the Syriac, have not 
been very successful. To my own mind, I confess this internal 
argument carries with it almost equal force to the united weight of 
the many external proofs, to which I have been forced to yield con- 
viction. I request every candid and unprejudiced person to read 
the Epistles as they stand, now that the interpolated passages have 
been removed from the Greek, and then to read them as they for- 
merly stood, and to judge for himself. I request him to examine 
the purified Greek, which the Reviewer himself acknowledges to be 
" Ignatian, and (a few words excepted) nothing but IgnatianJ," 
and to judge whether that, and the parts omitted as interpolations, 
could have been by the same hand and the same heart. The 
Epistle to St. Polycarp, it will be seen, has suffered no other inter- 
polation than the addition of two chapters at the end ; its original 
style, therefore, remains unaltered : and this Epistle varies but 
slightly in both the Longer and Shorter recensions. That to the 
Romans, also, is almost free from insertions in the first live 
chapters, although it has received many additions towards the end : 
the difference in this Epistle also, in the two recensions, is com- 



* See Smith's edition, p. 38. 
t See Review, p. 339. 



t Ibid. p. 74. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



65 



paratively slight, amounting to only three short insertions in the 
whole of the three first chapters, one of two words, another of three, 
and a third of five*; so that its original style, likewise, is not altoge- 
ther obscured, t But the Epistle to the Ephesians has received so 
much addition and admixture as to be almost entirely changed 
from its primitive form. The difference in the style of the Epistle 
to Poly carp from that of the rest weighed with Archbishop Usher]: 
in rejecting it as spurious, as it had also done in part with Vedelius§ 
and Scultetus|| before him. And it is also a circumstance worthy 
of observation, that the sagacity of Vedelius IT has marked out, as 
different from the rest, that part of the Epistle to the Trallians which 
forms the fourth and fifth chapters in the usual Greek editions. 
These two chapters, in all probability, are the only genuine words of 
St. Ignatius in this Epistle, and the Syriac version shews that they 
have been transferred thither, without further change or admixture, 
from their true position in the Epistle to the Romans.** Whiston, 
Mosheim,tt and Schroecktt, have likewise made observations upon 
the difference of style in the Epistle to Polycarp. 

I now leave my readers, who have had the patience and kindness 
to follow me through this detail, to form their own judgment 
whether the Reviewer be correct in the conclusion at which he 
arrives in the next page, 334. 

On the whole, then, we find ourselves brought by the force of evidence, both 
external and internal, to the conclusion, that the Syriac version contained in 
the volume before us is an imperfect and mutilated representation of the three 
Epistles of Ignatius. 

Thus far I have considered the Reviewer's statements at some 
length, in the hope of being able thereby to bring forward some 
facts relating to the Epistles of St. Ignatius, which may be useful 



* See Usher's edit. p. 82. 

t " The other is from such parts as are common both to the larger and smaller 
editions especially the Epistles to the Komans and to Polycarp, which, as we 
shall note hereafter, are almost the same in both." Whiston's L>isser. p. 20. 

+ See Usher's Disser. p. ix. 

§ See Vedelius' edition, pp. 208 and 209. 

|| See Medulla Patrum, lib. ii. cap. 3. ^[ See edition of Vedelius, p. G 
** See my Preface, p. 29. tt See Appendix, p. 18. 

XX Ibid. p. 19. 

F 



66 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



to those who may not have the means of making the investiga- 
tion for themselves, even after the temporary object of this Reply 
has been accomplished. In the sequel I shall be more brief, as I 
have only to combat the learned Reviewer's " conjectures." 

Having proceeded to this point, he endeavours to account for 
" the time at which, and the reasons for which, such a Syriac 
epitome of Ignatius, if it be an epitome, was made." With 
respect to the time, " he is induced to conjecture that it is not 
earlier than the close of the sixth century." Now, unless he can 
bring forward something more valid as an argument than a " con- 
jecture" to contradict and disprove the passage which I am about 
to quote from my Preface, relative to the MS. in which a copy 
of one of these Epistles is found, it would be useless in me to. 
waste my own and my readers' time in confuting this " conjecture." 
This one Epistle may be considered as a fair specimen of the text 
of the Syriac version at the age when it was transcribed ; and it 
will be seen, from the collation which I have made with the other 
copy containing the three Epistles, written apparently about a cen- 
tury later, that they both perfectly agree, with the exception of two 
or three very slight variations, the interchange of two prepositions 
of the same signification, and a little difference of orthography in 
some words, just sufficient to shew that they have not both been 
transcribed from the same copy. The reason why only one Epi- 
stle exists in this manuscript is probably to be found in the fact of 
its having been written upon the last leaf of the book, and there 
not being sufficient space for the addition even of one of the others. 
The vellum of this one leaf, however, was too valuable to be left 
vacant. The transcriber seems, therefore, to have added to the 
rest of the contents of the volume the short Letter to Polycarp, 
which stands the first of those three which form the Syriac collec- 
tion of the Epistles of St. Ignatius. I transcribe here, from my 
Preface, p. x., the passage alluded to relative to the age of this 
manuscript : " There is no date to this volume, but the other, 
" bound up with it, has a date at the end, which has been partly 
" erased. Enough, however, remains to shew that it was tran- 
" scribed between the year of the Greeks 840 and 850, which will 
« give the date of the MS. between A. D. 530 and 540. The 
" other volume, bound up with it, was undoubtedly written at the 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS, 



67 



" same period, and indeed the hand-writing seems to be identical. 
" We may therefore safely conclude, that this copy of the Epistle 
" of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp was transcribed in the first half of 
" the sixth century, or before A. D. 550." 

There is another " conjecture," also, made by the Reviewer, 
which I cannot pass by without observation. 

We feel little doubt in our own minds that the collection of Syriac MSS., 
recently deposited in the British Museum, will turn out to he a nest of Euty- 
ehianism. — p. 336. 

This is a bold conjecture to be hazarded by one who must have 
been almost entirely ignorant of the nature of the contents of the 
collection to which it refers. And had the learned proposer of it, 
to use his own words, " waited to take counsel of his calmer 
judgment*," he would perhaps scarcely have ventured to pro- 
pound it. In the beginning of his article, as I have already 
observed, he has stated that he understood that " about 250 
volumes, some of them of very great antiquity," which in the 
same page he calls " valuable MS. materials," " were now safely 
lodged in our National Museum." In my book I have made 
use of thirteen of these MSS. Two of them contain copies of 
the works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, a third is the 
Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, a fourth is a Catena on the 
Scriptures, and two others contain the Epistles of St. Ignatius, 
together with various ascetic works by Pachomius and Evagrius, 
the Monks of the Desert in Egypt, some of the writings of St. 
Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum, of Mar Jacob f, &c. &c, and 
the Prophecy of Isaiah. Thus, six at least, out of the thirteen, are 
free from what the Reviewer designates Eutychianism. Of the 
rest, three contain works by Severus of Antioch, one, writings of 
Timotheus of Alexandria, and also works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, 
of Gregory of Neocaesarea and Epiphanius, and three are imperfect 
fragments, one consisting only of ten leaves, of controversial works 
by Monophysites, but who in all probability were not Eutychians. 
These amount in all, perfect and imperfect, to seven volumes. 



* See Eeviewer, p. 348. 

t Who this Mar Jacob was will he seen belcw, at p. SO. 



68 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW. 



Thus the Reviewer, with the contents of only thirteen MSS. par- 
tially made known to him, to six of which he attaches no sus- 
picion — having, also, but a very vague and indistinct notion of 
the nature of the remaining seven — ventures to assert that he felt 
" little doubt in his own mind," that the very collection, winch in the 
beginning of his paper he had stated he understood " consisted of 
about two hundred and fifty volumes," "of very great antiquity/' 
and " valuable MS. materials," will turn out to be a nest of Kuty- 
chianism. Yet this very collection* the Pope Clement XI. sent 
into Egypt twice, at an interval of ten years, to endeavour to ob- 
tain. A part of it was first procured and brought into England by 
the Archdeacon of Bedford. These volumes were exammed, and a 
list of their contents made, by the Regius Professor of Hebrew in the 
University of Cambridge, who also discovered among them, and 
published, the Theophania of Eusebius, long supposed to have been 
lost. Their value was such as to make the Trustees of the National 
Library, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself at the head, de- 
sirous to secure for this country the remainder of these MSS. ; and 
the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury deemed the object worthy of 
an especial grant for this purpose. It would not, therefore, perhaps 
have been too much to expect that the Reviewer, in his confessed 
ignorance of the nature and contents of about 240 of these volumes, 
even according to his own calculation, might have been induced 
to pay more deference to the judgment and character of the 
parties above specified, than to hazard an opinion that they would 
have been at so much pains to procure for the British nation, at 
the expense of a public grant from the Treasury, a mere nest of 
Eutychianism. f 

The Reviewer writes, in " offering his own opinion respecting 
the authorship of the Syriac version of the three Epistles of St. 
Ignatius," in the following terms : — p. 336. 

We have shewn above that this version was not known in the metropolis of 
Syria or of Egypt at the commencement of the sixth century ; and we do not 
believe that it was then in existence ; but about the middle of that century, the 



* The reader will find a short account of this collection in No. cliii. p. 39, 
of the Quarterly Review, 
t See above, page 7. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



69 



Eutychians, after a temporary depression, became dominant in Syria, and over 
a great part of the East ; and have so continued to be till this day, under their 
two patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. We know also that they were un- 
scrupulous in mutilating the writings of the early Christian Fathers, to accom- 
modate them to their own heretical dogmas — " id Monophysitis solenne," says 
Assemani (ii. 289.) ; and we are sure that the Eutychians of Antioch would 
have been very desirous of enlisting, if possible, on their side the name of the 
venerable bishop and martyr of that city, St. Ignatius ; and we find this ver- 
sion in the society of various Eutychian works. All these circumstances, taken 
together, induce us to conjecture that it is from the hand of a Syrian Monophy- 
site, not earlier than the close of the sixth century. 

A sufficient answer, I trust, to the first and last sentences of this 
paragraph will be found in what has been already said. I do not 
think it worth while, for my present purpose, to test the historical 
information which the Reviewer offers in the second. But the 
next statement I proceed to examine. I confess, for my own part, 
when I read the passage, I supposed that Assemani had declared 
that the Monophysites were in the habit of mutilating the works of 
the fathers ; that is, of exhibiting them, as the Reviewer has just 
concluded the Syriac version to be, " an imperfect and mutilated 
representation" of them, or, as he expresses it three lines below, 
an " epitome " of them. I turned, however, to Assemani's own 
words, and I give them here as I find them : " Quod vero Bar- 
Hebrseus errorem suum auctoritate Gregorii Thaumaturgi, &c. 
confirmare nititur; depravatis Patrum codicibus usus est, quem- 
admodum ab initio exortse hujus haereseos animadverterunt Ca- 
tholici apud Evagrium, lib. 3. His. Eccl. c. 31. Multos Apolli- 
naris Ubros (inquiunt monachi Palsestince in epistola ad Alcisonem 
de Xenaja et sectatoribus Monophysitis) Athanasio,. et Gregorio 
Thaumaturgo et Julio falsb adscripserunt : quibus prcecipue libris 
multitudinem in erroris sui societatem inducunt. Id Monophy- 
sitis et aliis hsereticis schismaticis Orientalibus solenne fuisse, ob- 
servarunt Orthodoxi in Actis Conciliorum ac praasertim in sexta 
Synodo et in Florentina." * 

Assemani in this place accuses the Monophysites and others of 
corrupting the Fathers, but he has never said they mutilated or 
epitomized them. Further, I think it right to observe, that Asse- 



* See Assemani, Vol. ii. p. 289. 



70 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

mani was both a Maronite and a Romanist, and, consequently, 
doubly an enemy to the poor Jacobites, who still struggled to 
maintain their independence against the aggressions of Rome. 
The writer of an article in No. cliii. p. 49, of the Quarterly Re- 
view, has alluded to some suspicious circumstances relative to 
Assemani ; nor would it be difficult to allege others, if necessary : 
even the very sentence which I have just cited, if duly tested, will 
perhaps be found to assert more than facts will justify. At any rate, 
we know that all parties have been in the habit of casting in the 
teeth of their adversaries the charge of falsification or misinterpre- 
tation, when passages or works of the ancient fathers were brought 
forward which opposed their own views. And this of itself is a 
proof how numerous such falsifications must have been. 

It is worthy of remark in this place, that the same Timotheus of 
Alexandria, from whose works I have cited the passages attributed 
to St. Ignatius, brings a similar accusation against his adversaries 
very soon after the council of Chalcedon. And as this appears in a 
private Letter to Faustinus, a deacon of his own persuasion, in all 
probability the charge is not without foundation. I give his own 
words— <»£iX**j idioms ^3 r o }j| l^&±> ^4&o 

ft-*£cl ^qj] >q^a| IdA^s ]l2>}> <-^A •. ^oav*3>a^J^ 

t^Lfeta;-^*^*] ^ ^asZa^ ]z| ^3<n waj] <j .^^>L±Zx> 
J^o '.|Zo2u^d £uqa |Zq*2u^Zj jA..*^ )Zqi^40iz> |>a^ p 

fSQZQ OCT ' t ^9 ^JQ^CJ ^^P *. <0-aJ^» w£>Zo£laJj 

<aj] ^Oj^Z p *• v QJ 1 }A** l J l *cn^V? 

P) ,-^CT fc^ ^OCTA^D <Q^J=>ZZ P w£)| liuJf^l il^CJD 

r^^A ^SOO^ f*^joCT P .[^f^C^ ^OD,3JO }cTL^]} ^Om2AJ 

^jsAictoj ,_*^|^s3£aS p| .j-^H* i^jij |Zctud) q^q^Z .^J^ct 
Po iisu^cu ^4^^ ^300^0 . y^t^o tp<n+bJ\> 

|ZctJ=)|j fLfiU^O l^CT^ p3^^L^ ^aSCT-^C; ^^1 .^O^CCD 

.^t~ }±+ t £ 1Zct-d| o^a-^Z ^^ct ^s3£0^> ,<oct^ ^xu^t^L* 

" Inasmuch as I have heard, since I am in banishment for 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 71 



Christ's sake, of their terrible blasphemies, which I do not even 
dare to commit to writing, I exhort your love, that ye will be 
diligent, according to your ability, to save those who are enticed. 
If, therefore, any simple-minded persons come to you, and confess 
the holy faith of the Trinity equal in substance, and desire to be in 
communion with you ; such as confess that our Lord is of the same 
nature as we are, in the flesh ; those who are such as these, do not, 
I entreat, trouble them at all with other words, nor require from 
them such subtleties as these, but leave such to praise God and bless 
the Lord in the simplicity and innocence of their hearts. For it was 
not against such as these that the holy Fathers decreed anathemas, 
but against those who esteem themselves to be something ; those 
who are without doctrine, and unstable; those who pervert the 
sacred Scriptures and the words of the holy Fathers, and explain 
them otherwise, to their own destruction, and that of such as are 
persuaded by them : these are they against whom the holy fathers 
decreed anathemas/' * 

Moreover, the Eutychians were accused by Vigilius of Thapsus, 
so early as the fifth century, of corrupting even the Scriptures ; a 
circumstance of which the learned Reviewer does not seem to have 
been aware, or it would probably have been pressed into his ser- 
vice. But Beausobre and L'Enfant, who have considered this 
accusation in their " Introduction to the Reading of the Holy 
Scriptures," disprove it ; and as their words are so applicable to 
the case of the Reviewer, I give them here : " This alteration they 
" made, as the Bishop pretends, with a design to countenance 
" their notion, that Jesus Christ did not really suffer and die, but 
" only appeared to others to do so. But nothing can be more 
" groundless than this charge. We do not learn that Eutyches 
" ever maintained that Jesus Christ did not really die. This 
" was only a consequence drawn from his doctrine, wherein he 
" confounded the two natures of Christ. Besides, supposing that 
" he had been an assertor of the opinion of the Docetce, this 
" change was likely to do more harm than good to his cause, 
" since the original Greek word, which he rendered to be reckoned, 
" signifies also to be ranked amongst. He must therefore have 



* See Cod. Add. 12,156. f. 35. 



72 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

" made the like alteration in St. Luke, where the same words are 
" read, which yet we do not find he did. But what puts the 
(t matter out of all doubt is, that this various reading is of a 
" more ancient date than the Eutychians, since it occurs in a 
" writer of the third century. It must, then, be a various reading, 
" which was put into the copies by mistake, and not out of any ill 
u design. We have insisted upon this point, that we might give 
" the reader to understand how indiscreet a zeal it is to charge the 
" hereticks with having falsified the holy Scriptures, since such a 
" charge tends to destroy the authentickness of that sacred book ; 
" and besides, it may be retorted against the orthodox Chris- 
" tians."* 

If the reader be willing to take the trouble, he will find much in- 
formation relative to the corruptions of the fathers, and even of 
the Scriptures themselves — not less by the orthodox than heretics — 
in the third and fourth chapters of the " Treatise on the right use 
of the Fathers," by Daille. There is, however, one remarkable 
passage cited from the learned Masius, which, as it bears a direct 
reference to the question of Syriac writers, I will transcribe here 
in the words of the English translator. " This learned person, 
" observing that the Liturgy of St. Basil was not so long in the 
" Syriac as in the Greek, assigns this reason : — ' For, saith he, men 
" have always been of such a humour and disposition in matters of 
" religion, that you shall scarcely find any that have been able to 
" content themselves with the ceremonies prescribed unto them by 
" their fathers, however holy they have been in themselves ; so 
" that we may observe that, in course of time, according as the 
u Prelates have thought fittest to unite the affections of the people 
" to piety and devotion, many other things have been either added 
" or altered, and (which is much worse) many superstitious things 
" have been introduced ; in which particular I conceive the Chris- 
" tians of Syria have been more moderate than the Greeks and 
" Latins, from not having the opportunity of enjoying the quiet 
" and abundance of life which the others had." f 

The next argument in the paragraph above quoted, which in- 



* See Bp. Watson's collection of Theological Tracts, Vol. iii. p. 286. 
t, See ch. 4. edit. London, 1843. p. 48. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OE ST. IGNATIUS. 



73 



duces the Reviewer "to conjecture" that the Syriac version "is 
from the hand of a Syrian Monophysite," is, that " we find this 
version in the society of various Eutychian works." In examining 
this argument, I will for the moment consider, with the Reviewer, 
the terms Eutychian and Monophysite as identical. The collec- 
tion of MSS., brought from the Desert of Nitria, consists of up- 
wards of 360 volumes ; and since many of these are made up of 
three or four different MSS., or parts of MSS. bound together, 
the whole number of originally distinct volumes may be taken at 
about 1000. On the last leaf of one of these MSS., the rest of the 
contents of which are the works of writers of unimpeached ortho- 
doxy, I found one Epistle, and in the middle of another volume, 
with writers equally orthodox, I discovered the three Epistles of 
St. Ignatius. The great mass of the collection consists of the holy 
Scriptures, Liturgies, Lectionaries, and the works of the most 
orthodox and best of the fathers of the Church, such as Eusebius, 
Athanasius, the three Gregories, Basil, Ephraem, Chrysostom, 
Proclus, Cyril of Alexandria, Palladius, Evagrius, Macarius, 
Jerome, &c. This Syriac version, therefore, could scarcely be 
found in better " society." There are also in this collection copies 
of some of the works of Severus, one work of Timotheus, and 
some of original Syriac writers, who held the Monophysite tenets. 
In examining all these volumes through, to cull from them every 
word which I could discover attributed to St. Ignatius, except the 
passages in Eusebius and Dionysius the Areopagite, already known 
in the Greek, I could meet with nothing Ignatian in any other 
writers than Monophysites, and in these is found invariably a text 
which the Reviewer says " corresponds with the received text." If 
the society, therefore, in which it is found be any proof of its author- 
ship, we have much greater reason to be "induced to conjecture" 
that the " received text" is from " the hand of a Monophysite." 
In page 336 the Reviewer proceeds — 

Let us now be allowed to advance a step further. For argument's sake, let 
us be permitted to consider the received text as proved to be genuine (which 
we believe it to be), and let us carefully compare the Syriac version with it ; 
and let us examine whether the passages of the Greek, which are not found in 
the Syriac, are such as, from the peculiar statements of doctrine and discipline 
which they contain, are likely to have been omitted by a Monophysite, The 
Eutychians were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, &c, 



74 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

In this place the Reviewer finds himself in a dilemma. The 
Syriac version as it stands, even as he himself seems to admit, 
contains no indication either of any Eutychian or Monophysite ten- 
dency ; while all the passages which I have given, as quoted by Mo- 
nophysites, are evidently taken from a recension similar to the Medi- 
cean text, although not perfectly agreeing with it, as I have shewn 
above. This is awkward for the Reviewer's position, because, so 
far as we have the means of forming any judgment on the matter, 
the Monophysites used a very different recension of these Epistles 
from that which he thinks "proves to be a miserable epitome, 
made by an Eutychian heretic* : or, as he otherwise expresses it, " of 
Jacobite extraction," or, " from the hand of a Monophysite." Un- 
less, therefore, he take the meaning of the words to be identical, 
which it by no means appears that they are, it must, according to 
his shewing, have been the joint production of an Eutychian, a 
Monophysite, and a J acobite. 

At page 343 the Reviewer seems to be struck with the obvious 
absurdity of his position, in which he has been endeavouring to 
shew that the Syriac version is an epitome, made by an Eutychian, 
because it omits certain passages which he supposes to be ojiposed 
to Eutychian tenets, while the real facts prove that these very pas- 
sages are cited by Eutychianst in favour of those tenets. The 
following is his own way of getting over this difficulty : 

How, then, (it may be asked) could these passages have been omitted by an 
Eutychian, as contrary to his tenets, when they are actually quoted by an 
Eutychian Bishop ? The reply to this question is not difficult. It is one of 
the properties of truth to be always consistent ; and of error to be ever varying : 
and the inconsistencies of error are always found to corroborate truth. Such is 
found to be the case here. — p. 343. 

I make no remark upon this explanation. In his endeavour to 
shew that this Syriac version is the work of an Eutychian, a 
Monophysite, or a Jacobite, the Reviewer volunteers information 
to his readers relative to the various sects into which the Oriental 
Churches were divided subsequently to the council of Chalcedon. 
With this I have nothing to do, and therefore pass it over without 



* P. 348. 

t I use this word in the Keviewer's sense of it, and not as I understand it 
myself. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



75 



further observation. Neither is it any business of mine to under- 
take the defence of Severus of Antioch, or Timotheus of Alexandria, 
whom the Reviewer designates as "leaders of a large body of 
Eutychian heretics." But I can hardly understand how a man, 
who anathematized Eutyches and refuted his tenets, as Timotheus 
did, can be called an Eutychian. * Indeed, one division of the very 
work of this author, from which I have given the extracts in my 
volume, is entitled, }^^2i^5q-^o] ^.-^.^a.^ |ZQliZ " Proofs 
against the Eutychians f ; " and the Reviewer himself under- 
takes "to shew that Severus, though an Eutychian, waged war 
against Eutychians." % This is not quite consistent with the cha- 
racter of an able and politic Bishop, which even his adversaries 
seem to accord to him. I would further remark, that the learned 
Reviewer can scarcely be ignorant that almost the only accounts 
which we have hitherto had of these Patriarchs, and of those who 
were under their spiritual jurisdiction, have been furnished by 
their opponents and their bitterest enemies, but that they were 
held in the highest estimation by their own people, who had the 
best means of judging of their character. § Surely, therefore, when 
about to accuse in such stringent terms, he should || "have found it 
needful to admonish himself of the justice of hearing both sides, and 
have called to mind the sage advice of the cautious Epicharmus " 
— Na0e Kcii fxe/jLvaa' aTriGreiv' apdpa ravra tcov (ppevcov. IT 

* See L'Art de Ver. les dates, Vol. i. p. 236. Fleury, lib. 29. c. 48. Evagrius 
Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 6. 

t See Add. MSS. 12,156. fol. 32. rect. 

X It was my intention to add in this place the creeds or formularies of faith 
both of Severus and Timotheus, in order to give my readers an opportunity of 
judging from their own words how near these two Patriarchs approached to, or 
how far they receded from, the true Catholic faith. But I do not think it 
necessary to my present purpose, and consequently reserve them for a collec- 
tion of creeds, gathered from writers of the Oriental Churches, which I hope at 
some future period to find leisure to arrange and publish. 

§ The Reviewer himself has alluded to this in note 3. p. 329. 

|| See Eeview, p. 322. 

^[ The learned Reviewer seems to have taken these words of Epicharmus 
from the same volume as the passage relative to epitomes, at p. 329 ; at least 
this is the form in which they are given by Polybius : edition by Casaubon, 
fol. Paris, 1609. p. 768. d. In Stobaus' Florilegium, edition of Grotius, p. 25 ? 



76 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



For my own part, so far as I have had the opportunity of in- 
vestigating this subject, I feel that we are indebted to these two 
Patriarchs for resisting the aggressions of their fellow-patriarchs 
of Rome and Constantinople, who, had they found them more 
ready to submit, and to give up their rights and independency, 
would never perhaps have discovered their heresy, or at least 
would have overlooked it. 

The Reviewer speaks with much complacency of the council of 
Chalcedon, which he styles the " greatest council that had ever 
been convoked in the Christian Church." But while we ac- 
knowledge the correctness of their definition of faith, we cannot 
but bewail the disgraceful riots of their proceedings, unbecoming 
to Christians, and still much more so to a Synod of Christian 
Bishops ; nor can we fail to lament the most unhappy consequences 
of that council, which rent Christendom to pieces, and made it an 
easy victory in the East to Mohammedanism in the following cen- 
turv. Truly, of this council it may be said, as the excellent 
Gregory jVazianzen has written in his Letter to Procopius * : 'E^w 
Hev ovto)?, el hel r aArjdeg ^pcKpew, axrre Travra avWo^ov (pev^eiv eiri- 
CKoircov, on /jM](!>e/j.Las crvpodov reAo? elhov ^pj](7Tov' yu>^e Xvcriv kcikcoi' 
fjiaWov ecr^/cuta?, rf irpoo-drjKyv ac >yap cpi\oreiKLai kcu fyiXapxicu Xo^ov 
KpeiTTOveq. 

I will not waste my readers' time in examining all the passages 
by which the Reviewer endeavours to add strength to his aro-u- 
ment. Two or three will perhaps suffice. 

At page 339 he writes — 

One of the few additions in the Syriac version occurs at the close of the 
Epistle to Polycarp — "I salute him who is about to be thought worthy" 
(thought worthy by ivhom does not appear from the Syriac, but it is clear from 
the Greek that it is by the council, to be convoked by Polycarp ; and this is 
another instance in which it is necessary to appeal to the Greek, to give com- 
pleteness to the Syriac) — " to go into Syria in my stead, as I charged thee" — 



this passage is given, ~Srj<pe kcu pe/unjcr airicrTelv, vevpa ravra roov tppevoov. In 
Gaisford's edition we find pe/ju>T]<r for pe/jivaar : Vol. i. p. 420. Riccardi, in his 
notes on Proclus Constant, p. 265, cites this verse, Na<£e xai fxepvaa-' a'uicrTeiv, 

apOpa, vsvpa rcov cppevoov, which comes the nearest" to Q. Cicero's version ; 
Nervos atque artus esse sapientice, -non tcmere credere. De Petit. Consul. Ch. x. 

* See Gregorii Naz. Opera, edit. Parisiis, 1609. Vol. i. p. 314. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



77 



(for what purpose he is to go into Syria is not intelligible from the Syriac, but 
it is clear from the Greek). The words, " in my stead, as I charged thee," are 
not found in the Greek. Our conjecture is, that they were interpolated in 
extenuation of the schismatical acts of the Eutychians, who obtruded their 
Bishops in the place of orthodox ones (as they did Severus, in the room of 
Flavian), in contravention of the well-known rule of Nicfea, that no second 
Bishop should ever be created in a city where there was one already. 

On the subject of the first part of this paragraph I have already 
spoken in the Preface to my volume, pp. xxvii. and xxviii., to 
which I beg to refer. I think the reader will hardly fail to draw 
the same conclusion as I have done, that it was much more natural 
for St. Ignatius, in writing to St. Polycarp, whom he had so lately- 
seen, to make such an allusion as is conveyed in these words, re- 
specting the person who was to go to Antioch in his stead, than to 
write express directions as to the manner in which St. Polycarp. 
was to proceed, such as are given in the seventh and eighth chap- 
ters of this Epistle in the Greek, and which in themselves seem 
more consonant with the practice of later times. The words, " in 
my stead," certainly do not exist in the Greek in this place, but 
they are, as the Reviewer himself observes, found in the " spurious 
Epistle to the Antiochians," whither, in all probability, they have 
been transferred from their true position in the Syriac by the fabri- 
cator of that Epistle, in the same manner as the latter part of the 
Epistle to the Romans has been transferred to that to the Trallians, 
and as numerous other passages from the genuine Epistles are 
borrowed, to give plausibility to those which are false. 

The author's "conjecture" relative to these words in the Syriac 
version I leave to my readers' own judgment, and pass on to lay 
before them one or two other " conjectures." 

At page 340 the Reviewer writes — 

We must advert here to a slight alteration in the Syriac version of this 
Epistle to the Ephesians. Ignatius says in the Greek, " When there is no 
strife among you, ye live the life of God." This is plain enough ; but our 
Syriac translator having, perhaps, before his eyes the strifes of the twelve diffe- 
rent factions of Eutychians, to say nothing of their feuds with the orthodox, 
chooses to read epm, love, for epu, strife ; and at the price of a false concord, 
and taking love in a vicious sense, to warn them against it, instead of against 
strife ! 

We have here another specimen of the learned Reviewer's style 
of verbal criticism. My translation is, "one of those lusts;" and 



78 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



both the English, as well as its corresponding Syriac word, ex- 
presses other desires than those of "love in a vicious sense." 
How, then, could he possibly tell that the translator, who, ac- 
cording to his own theory, must have performed his task more 
than twelve centuries ago, chose to read epcog for epig, and also to 
take it in a vicious sense ? I think, however, I can prove that it is 
very unlikely that he did read epog, and also, that I shall be able to 
shew what in all probability he did read. The word epoq occurs 
once, and only once, in the Greek of the Ignatian Epistles, in the 
well-known words, 6 e/uos epcog ecrravpcoTaL* ; and as this is a 
genuine passage, it is also found in the Syriac version, where it 
is rendered by ] L^Claa > f, as it also is in the same passage cited in 
the Syriac translation of the supposed works of Dionysius the 
Areopagite. X The Syriac word in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
now under our consideration, is | ii^^j § ; and this occurs also in 
the Epistle to Polycarp, in the passage, that they may not he found 
the slaves of lusts, \ h n ^^$\\; and again, a little further on, from the 
same root, although not quite in the same form, that the marriage 
might be in our Lord, and not in lust, \h^^3 It is found 
likewise in the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius, in the desire 
of the sufferings of the cross.** In all of these three places the 
corresponding Greek word is eiridvjuia. We have every reason, 
therefore, to suppose that the Syriac translator must have read the 
same word in the fourth place : and so, indeed, we find that he 
did, upon referring to the Longer recension, which in this, as in 
many other instances, has preserved the true reading : orav <yap 
/jLrjhe/u'ia eiridv/J.La ev vjjliv vTrapyei, k. r.A.ft Will the Reviewer urge, 
in this case, that the interpolator of the Longer recension, " having 
perhaps before his eyes the strifes of the twelve different factions 
of Eutychians, to say nothing of their feuds with the orthodox, 
chooses to read eiridvjjita, lust, for epis, strife," &c. ? 
At page 348 the Reviewer writes — 

It is a remarkable fact, that all the Jacobite Patriarchs of Syria at this day 



* Epist. to Romans, cli. vi. edit. Jacobson, p. 364. 
t P- 22. 1. 5. I P. 54. 1. S. § P. 12. 1. 10. 

|| P. 6. 1.11. f P. 6. 1.22. ** P. 65. 1. 16. 

tt See Archbp. Usher's edition, p. 33. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



79 



usurp the title of Ignatius ! They thus shew their desire to appropriate the 
holy Martyr to themselves ; and the same spirit would have not spared his 
works which has taken this liberty with his name. 

According to the authority of Le Quien, the first Jacobite Patri- 
arch who bore the name of Ignatius was raised to that office* 
A. D. 877, or about two hundred years, according to the Reviewer's 
own calculation, after the Syriac version was made. The next who 
took this appellation was elevated to the Patriarchate about three 
hundred and forty-five years later t, A.D. 1222. 

If there be any value in the Reviewer's argument with respect 
to Jacobite Patriarchs of Syria, let us apply it to the Popes of 
Rome. " It is a remarkable fact, that no less than thirteen Popes 
of Rome have usurped the title of Clement. They thus shew their 
desire to appropriate that apostolic Father to themselves ; and the 
same spirit would not have spared his works which has taken this 
liberty with his name" 

The Reviewer then proceeds — 

Our conjecture, that this Syriac version is of Jacobite extraction, is further 
confirmed by the fact, that in the very same MS. volume which contains it, are 
found sermons by Mar Jacob, whom we conjecture to be no other than the 
celebrated heretical and schismatical Bishop of Edessa 

To this he adds the following note : — 

If this Mar Jacob should turn out to be the other Bishop of Edessa (see 
above, p. 347, note), he also was a Monophysite \ ; if we may judge from 
his translation of the writings of Severus, and from his ritual works, received 
by the Jacobites. 

And at page 349, more boldly — 

And there is a strong presumptive evidence against the orthodoxy and in- 
tegrity of writings discovered, as the two MSS. of the Syriac . version have 
been, in the suspicious company of Severus cf Antioch, and Timotheus of 
Alexandria, and other Monophysite writers, and one of these MSS., the only 
one which contains the three Epistles, bound up in the same volume with a 
work of a leader, perhaps the head of the Jacobites. 

The few words in which these three sentences are comprised, contain 
so many errors, that it would occupy far too much time to notice 



* See Oriens Chriitianus, Vol. ii. p. 1375. t See ibid, p 1392. 

X Assemani says he was an orthodox Catholic, although he did translate the 
works of Severus. See Bibl. Orient. Vol. i. p. 470. The Liturgies of St-Chry- 
sostom, St. Basil, <kc, are also " received by the Jacobites ;" shall we, therefore, 
suspect these Fathers of Monophysite doctrines ? 



80 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



them all : this I think will hardly be deemed necessary. I therefore 
limit myself to the examination of the one which is made princi- 
pally to bear upon the matter at present under our consideration. 

In giving the short account in my Preface of the MSS. from 
which I had extracted my materials, after speaking of the three 
Epistles of St. Ignatius found in the volume alluded to, I merely 
added — " The rest of this MS. is miscellaneous, containing a Letter 
" of Gregory Theologus to Evagrius, Sermons of Mar Jacob, 
&c. &c."* I did not stop to inquire who this Mar Jacob was, be- 
cause some research would be necessary to enable me to ascertain 
that fact ; and I did not for an instant imagine it could be sup- 
posed to affect the question relating to the Syriac version, any more 
than I could conceive that Epiphanius and Gregory Thauma- 
turgus would incur the charge of Monophysitism because they are 
found in the same volume as Timotheus of Alexandria, or that Bp. 
Tomline would run the risk of being suspected of Calvinism be- 
cause I might happen to find a copy of his Elements of Christian 
Theology bound up together with the Institutes of the famous Re- 
former, of Geneva. I felt sure, however, that it could scarcely be 
Mar Jacob Baradaeus who has given name to the Jacobites, because 
I had transcribed his life, written by a contemporary Bishop, and 
had no recollection of any mention whatever of writings by him. f 
I thought it was very unlikely to be by Mar Jacob the Interpreter, 
because lie was not consecrated Bishop before 651 1, and, conse- 
quently, did not till then bear the title of Mar ; and I was by no 
means certain that the MS. might not have been transcribed 
before that date ; besides, although Assemani has given a long list 
of his works, he mentions no sermons. I should, therefore, have 
drawn the conclusion, that the author under our consideration was 
no a Bishop of Edessa " at all, but a man far more celebrated for 
his piety and learning than either, the famous Mar Jacob of Sarng, 
Bishop of Batnse ; and such proves to be the fact. This will be 
evident to any one who will compare the beginning of this homily, 
which is metrical, a\JD j^^^o \z>oZ. jl^Q^^ cnZy**, with 

the commencement of that described by Assemani in his first 

* See my Preface, p. 1 2. 

t Concerning the one or two works, which have heen falsely attributed to 
him, see Assemani Bibl. Or. 'Vol. ii. p. G7. 
+ See ibid. Vol. i p. 463. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 81 

volume of his Bibliotheca Orientalis, p. 316. No. 79. This Mar 
Jacob was born A. D. 452*, and died A. D. 521, or many years 
earlier than either of the other Bishops with whom the Reviewer 
could fain confound him. But lest the unfavourable light, in 
which the Reviewer seems to regard the other Bishops who bore 
this name, should also be reflected upon the author of the sermons 
found in the same MS. with the three Epistles of St. Ignatius, I 
transcribe Assemani's account of him : — " J acobus Sarugensis, cog- 
nomento Doctor, Batnarum in Mesopotamia Episcopus, earn ciim 
doctrinse, turn sanctitatis opinionem apud Syros obtinuit, ut ipsum 
tarn Orthodoxi, quam Hasretici velut Sanctum venerentur."f 

At page 345 the Reviewer, after bringing several heavy charges 
against Severus, to which, as they are not drawn from my volume, 
I am not bound to reply, writes in the following words : — 

It will be further seen, that Severus has actually distorted one of these pas- 
sages to suit his own particular dogma. " Christ (says the Greek) was baptized, 
that by suffering He might purify water." " Christ (says Severus) was bap- 
tized, that being passible He might purify water." 

I think, before the Reviewer had ventured to bring such an 
accusation against a Christian Patriarch, he should have been at the 
pains fully to examine the idioms of the two languages, to ascer- 
tain whether both these expressions made use of might not mean 
precisely the same thing. I cannot, however, even if they do not, dis- 
prove the Reviewer's statement that Severus " has actually distorted 
this passage to suit his own dogma," because I have not read all his 
writings; but so far as I know, Severus has never used these 
words at all; they are, however, cited by Timotheus of Alexandria, 
as I have given them at page 54 of my volume, where, in all pro- 
bability, the Reviewer became acquainted with them. 

The Reviewer adduces several sentences, concerning which he 
says it "is sufficiently obvious why an Eutychian should have 
rejected such passages," and endeavours thence to strengthen his 
supposition, that the Syriac version is a " miserable epitome made 
by an Eutychian heretic." With respect to these I observe gene- 
rally, that so far as I am able to form an opinion, they have nothing 



* See Assemani's Bibl. Orient. Vol. i. pp. 239, 290. 
t Ibid. p. 283. 

G 



82 



REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 



whatever to do with Eutychian tenets ; and further, the epitomizer 
must have spent his labour in vain, since he has allowed others to 
remain which inculcate the very same doctrine. Timotheus and 
Severus*, both able and learned men (and, according to the autho- 
rity of the Reviewer, Eutychians), would hardly have cited these 
in favour of Eutychian opinions, if others thought it prudent to 
reject them as opposed to Eutychianism. I will, however, examine 
one or two of the passages which the Reviewer brings forward — 

We have just quoted one passage from the Greek respecting the Eucharist, 
which is wholly omitted from the Syriac : let us now say a few words concern- 
ing another passage relative to the same subject. In the seventh chapter of 
his Epistles to the Romans, according to the Greek text, Ignatius exclaims : 
" I long for the Bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is 
the Flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made in the last times of the seed of 
David and of Abraham ; and I long for the Drink of God which is His Blood, 
which is incorruptible love, and everlasting life." Those words which are 
printed in italics are not found in the Syriac version. 

In the first place, I remark that Dr. Smith commences a long 
note on this passage with the following words: ""Aprov ©eov 
®e\o), k.t.\. Multa hie, quas occurrunt quoque apud Metaphras- 
tam, et reperiuntur etiam in vulgatis codicibus, manifestam sapiunt 
interpolationem." t In the next place, I observe that the Latin ver- 
sion edited by Archbp. Usher has made almost the same omissions, 
as the following words shew : — " Panem Dei volo, quod est caro 
Jesu Christi, ejus qui ex genere David, et potum volo sanguinem 
ipsius, quod est charitas incorruptibilis." J 

It must therefore be no less " remarkable" (to use the Reviewer's 
own words in his observations .on this passage), that the Latin 
translator, as well as "the Syriac translator, while he has pre- 
served the expression "the bread of God/' by which the elements 
seem to be divinized, has omitted the very term, " bread of life" 
which is urged by Orthodoxus against the Eutychian." — p. 342. 



* At page 345 the Reviewer makes the following remark: — " The Euty- 
chianism, therefore, of the Translator appears in some respects to have differed 
from that of Severus. On the whole, therefore, it appears to us much more 
fortunate than wonderful, that Severus should have cited some passages which 
are omitted in the Syriac version." 

t See Smith's edition, notes, p. 101. 

X See Jacobson's edit. p. 367. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 



83 



Again, at p. 345 — 

On the other hand, the Syriac translator has omitted the close of the follow- 
ing sentence in the Epistle to the Ephesians (cap. i.) : — " I hope to obtain by 
your prayers to fight with beasts at Rome, that thus I may be able to be 
a disciple of God, who offered himself an oblation and sacrifice for tis." The 
words after God do not appear in the Syriac. 

So likewise they " do not appear " in the Latin version edited by 
Archbp. Usher as we have seen above.* If, therefore, these omissions 
have been made in the Syriae version by the translator, to favour 
Eutychian tenets, for what purpose must we conclude that they have 
been made by the Latin translator ? Will the learned Reviewer 
now take upon himself to shew that this version also is a " mise- 
rable work by an Eutychian heretic?" 

At page 346, the Reviewer writes — 

We have already adverted to a passage in which the Syriac translator has 
suppressed the word Jesus. He seems to have taken great pains to do so ; 
especially when Jesus stands before Christ, and when a distinction is made 
between His person and that of the Father. 

I will only add one passage more, and then close my remarks. 

Such is the result of a comparison of the Syriac with the Greek, as far as 
respects one great particular doctrine of Christianity, and we look in vain for 
any evidence that the Syriac translator would have accepted the following 
articles of the Creed : — " I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ our 
Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suf- 
fered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried." 

There is no blindness so dark as that of those who wilfully close 
their eyes against the light. Let us, therefore, take the Syriac 
version as we find it. In the second line of the first Epistle, that to 
Poly carp, we read, by God the Father, and by Jesus Christ our 
Lord. In the same Epistle we find, Him who for our sokes suf- 
fered; Him who for our sokes endured every thing in every form. 
In that to the Ephesians we read, the greatness of God the Father 
— the will of the Father of Jesus Christ our God — the love of 
Jesus Christ the Saviour — ye are raised on high by the engine of 
Jesus Christ, which is the cross, and ye are drawn by the rope, 

which is the Holy Ghost . There was hidden from the rider 

of this world the virginity of Mary, and the birth of our Lord. 



* See page 2-1.. 



84 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

Surely here is evidence enough, taken from two of the Epistles 
only, in the author's own words, of his acceptance of the belief in 
God the Father, and in J esus Christ our Lord, born of the Virgin 
Mary, who suffered and was crucified, and implied evidence also 
of his belief in the miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost, as 
well as of our Lord's death and consequent burial. Nothing, cer- 
tainly, is said about Pontius Pilate. Neither is his name mentioned 
by St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, in their Epistles ; 
nor, indeed, do they speak of our Lord's miraculous conception by 
the Holy Ghost, or of his burial. Must we therefore conclude that 
" we look in vain for any evidence that these holy Apostles would 
have accepted these articles of the Apostles' Creed ? " 

I trust that I have now said enough to vindicate the Epistles of 
St. Ignatius, as they are represented to us in the Syriac version, 
from the charge of heresy amounting almost to infidelity, which 
has been brought against them by the Reviewer. 

It seems plain, from the Reviewer's concluding remarks, that 
his anxiety to uphold and defend the integrity of the seven Igna- 
tian Epistles is closely connected with some apprehension that the 
rejection of those passages, which the Syriac version points out as 
spurious, may be detrimental to the cause of that system of Church 
government which he is desirous of seeing strengthened by the 
" increase of the Episcopate." No one can be more desirous than 
myself that every thing should be done which wisdom and pru- 
dence can suggest, to augment the efficacy of that system, and its 
consequent benefits to our Christian community. But in consider- 
ing a subject like that which we have before us, it becomes our 
duty to divest ourselves as much as possible of the bias of our pre- 
judices and our sympathies, in order that we may be the better 
able to discover the truth, and then to follow it simply for its own 
sake, whether it confirm or condemn our previous notions and in- 
clinations. 

I take, however, a very different view of this matter, and entertain 
no such apprehension. I have already stated my conviction, that 
were every word of the Ignatian Epistles proved to be false, nor 
had one syllable of the writings of that holy man been preserved to 
us, this would not in the slightest degree affect the cause of Epi- 
scopacy, which is built upon surer ground than to be so easily 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 85 

shaken. The establishment of that system in Christ's Church, to 
be of authority, must be looked for many years before St. Ignatius 
was led to suffer at Rome. Are we, therefore, to suppose that the 
basis upon which it is raised would have been weakened if he had 
written no letters on his journey ? Indeed, the circumstances 
under which he was carried away, and the known character and 
behaviour of those who had the charge of him, render it at first 
sight improbable that he should have written many long letters on 
the way, or that one of his main objects in every one of them 
should have been the exaltation of the clergy, and especially of 
that order to which he himself belonged. This of itself has been felt 
to be a very weighty objection against the Ignatian Epistles ; and 
when added to so many other grounds for believing them to be 
spurious, it has rendered their authority altogether void and unavail- 
ing in all controversies with those who objected to the Episcopal 
form of Church government. Indeed, that system seems to have 
suffered in estimation from the indiscreet zeal of some of its advo- 
cates in insisting so much upon the Ignatian Epistles. In this 
instance, as in almost all other similar cases, when their opponents 
found the arguments, derived from this source, too weak to be 
maintained, they were ready to push their advantage further, and 
to conclude that the rest, which had not been made so prominent, 
were still more feeble and unavailing. 

None of the objections, however, from the reasons just stated, 
can with justice be brought against the Epistles of St. Ignatius as 
they are found in the Syriac Version. He only refers to that sub- 
ject in one of his Epistles, and his reason for so doing is suffi- 
ciently obvious. It is well known that many heresies were then 
springing up ; and the people at that early period could only be 
taught the true faith, and kept therein, by the diligent attention of 
their bishops and pastors. St. Ignatius, who had recently parted 
from St. Polycarp, and probably was writing to him at his own 
request, could not have adopted a surer and safer plan to pre- 
serve the Smyrneans from falling into error, than by exhorting 
them to give all heed to their Bishop, who had drawn the waters 
of life and truth so near to their only source. That this was the 
chief object of St. Ignatius is plain from the letter itself, which 
it is evident he intended to be read publicly to the Church at 



85 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, 

Smyrna. He reminds St. Polycarp of his duty to maintain 
his position as a Christian Bishop, and to stand firmly : to love 
both the good and evil disciples, bringing the latter into subjection 
by gentleness and meekness. He exhorts him to stand up like 
a brave combatant against those who teach strange doctrines, 
and bids him to impress several important duties upon his flock ; 
and then, addressing himself to the people, he urges them to look 
to their Bishop for instruction and example, adding, that he was 
ready to offer his life for those who were obedient to the Bishop, 
Presbyters, and Deacons. Nothing can be more admirable than 
this letter in this respect. St. Ignatius seems to have felt that the 
Smyrneans would then be ready to give much heed to his words, as 
one so shortly about to suffer for Christ's sake ; and he therefore 
took the opportunity of confirming them in their faith and duty, 
by teaching them through their own appointed teachers, and thus 
endeavouring; to bind them too-ether in the close ties of affection 
and obedience, which would be the most certain way of preventing 
them from sinning or from falling into error. 

Thus we obtain not only the testimony of St. Ignatius to the 
Episcopal form of government and the three distinct orders of the 
clergy, as established in still earlier times, existing in the Church of 
Smyrna at the beginning of the second century ; but also a certain 
insight into the separate and relative duties of the people and the 
clergy. 

We do not, however, find this holy man saying, that the Bishop 
sits in the place of God, and the Presbyters in the place of the 
Apostles.* — lie who honoreth the Bishoj), is honored of God, he 
who doeth any thing without the hnowledge of the Bishop, serveth 
the Devil f ; and using other expressions similar to these, such as 
we could hardly expect, after being acquainted with the Apostolic 
Epistles, from one who had both seen and heard the Beloved Dis- 
ciple. Neither, indeed, do we find these express words, Let no one 
do any tiling of what pertains to the Church without the Bisho]).X 
But in writing to a Christian Bishop an epistle evidently intended 
to be read to his flock, Ignatius does say what is tantamount to this : 



* Ep to Magnes c. vi. edit. Jacobson, p. 306. 

t See Ep. to Smyrn. c. ix ibid. p. 416. t Ibid. c. vui. p. 414. 



RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 87 

Let nothing be done without thy will, to which he adds, Neither do 
thou any thing without the will of God, a caution no less salutary., 
for Bishops than that which precedes it is for those who are en- 
trusted to their charge. Had all Bishops in all ages, and under 
all circumstances, duly heeded these words of St. Ignatius, the 
Apostolic institution and spiritual authority of their sacred office 
probably would never have been questioned. 

In closing these observations, I cannot refrain from expressing 
my hope, that some one who has more learning and ability, and 
also is happy in having more leisure than myself, will reconsider 
the whole of this most interesting question, relative to the Ignatian 
Epistles. The object is well worthy of the labour ; and it formerly 
engaged the attention of some of the ablest and best Prelates of 
our Church. The point at issue is either to strip off, as Archbp. 
Usher expresses it, a number of beggarly patches added unto his 
purple by later hands, by which it is foully depraved*, or to com- 
mit little less than sacrilege, by rending the Episcopal mantle of 
this holy Martyr. From that which has been said above it is plain 
what are my own convictions on this matter. I shall, however, be 
sorry if any one interested in this subject should rest contented 
with any arguments which I have adduced, without duly testing 
and examining them to ascertain if they be well founded. Who- 
soever may undertake the investigation, it is due no less to himself 
than to others that he should endeavour to divest himself of every 
bias of prejudice or feeling ; that he should seek impartially, and 
state candidly, the evidence and the arguments on both sides ; 
and if, from greater knowledge of the subject, more extensive 
research, or any more certain process of reasoning, he can prove 
my conclusions to be ill-founded, not only shall I be ready most 
willingly to acknowledge them to be so, but I also shall be among 
the first to offer him my sincere thanks for more clearly pointing 
out to me the Truth. 



* See above, p. 1 1 . 



APPENDIX. 



OPINIONS OF VARIOUS LEARNED MEN RESPECTING THE 
IGNATIAN EPISTLES, FROM THE YEAR 1650 DOWN TO THE DIS- 
COVERY OF THE SYRIAC VERSION IN 1843. 



1650. 

Petau (D.), De Theologicis Dogmatibus ; — De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia. 
1. Sed unum ex antiquissimis adeoque primi, et Apostoiici sseculi Patribus 
nefas est preetermittere, sanctissimum Ignatium : cujus creberrimis, ac luculen- 
tissimis testimoniis catholica de Ecclesiasticorum ordinum discrimine traditio 
mirum in modum adstruitur. Quse res Leidensem primum professorem Sal- 
masium, turn hujus suffragatorem Blondellum offendit sic, ut ad elevandam 
immo pessundandam Apostoiici viri auctoritatem, studium omrie suum, et 
conatum uterque contulerit : atque eo demum progress! sunt, ut ab Ignatio ullas 
unquam esse scriptas epistolas negare non sunt veriti : quee mihi opinio prorsus 
absurda, et intoleranda videri solet. Equidem hand abnuerim epistolas illius varie 
interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse : turn aliquas es?3 
supposititias : verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero 
nimium temere affirmari sentio. Editse sunt ante annos quatuor ex Bibliotheca 
Florentina Ignatii epistolEe sex hoc ordine : 1. ad Smyrneeos ; 2. ad Polycarpum ; 
3. ad Ephesios ; 4. ad Magnesios ; 5. ad Philadelphenses ; 6. ad Trallianos : 
deerat ad Romanos septima. Totidem enim, et quidem istas percenset Hierony- 
mus in libro de Scriptoribus, capite 26. Eee porro multum a vulgatis hactenus 
discrepant : atque hoc habent pra:cipuum, et magni utique faciendum, quod omnes 
in illis reperiantur sententise, quse ab antiqiiis Patribus ex Epistolis Ignatii 
citatse leguntur : quge quidem in aliis desiderantur editionibus. Debemus hoc 
prsestantissimum Christiana? antiquitatis monumentum eruditissimo viro Isaaco 
Vossio Gerardi filio, qui illas e Florentino codice descriptas trans Alpes retulit ; 
mihique legendas humanissime obtulit : ac non mn.lto post Lugduni Batavorum 
Greece et Laiir.e publicavit, addita, quam annis ante aliquot ediderat Jacobus 
Usserius, Latina veteri versione, apprime consentiente cum Grascis Florentini 
codicis : ut hose prudens, ac justa suspicio sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epi- 
stolas ; quas antiquorum consensus illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac ap- 
probatas reliquit — Lib. 5. Cap. 8. Edit. Antverp. tom.iv. p. 161. 



H 



APPENDIX. 



1681. 

Owen (John), On enquiry into the original nature, institution, power, order, 
and communion of Evangelical Churches. London, 1681. 4to. 
Unto this time — that is, ahout the year 107 or 108 — do belong the epistles 
ascribed unto Ignatius, if so be they were written by him. For Polycarpus 
wrote his Epistle to the Philippians after Ignatius was carried to Rome, having 
wrote his epistles before in Asia. Many are the contests of learned men 
about those epistles which remain, whether they are genuine, or the same that 
were written by him : for that he did write epistles unto sundry churches is 
acknowledged by all. And whereas there have in this age been two copies 
found and published of those epistles, wherein very many things that were 
obnoxious unto just exception in those before published do not at all appear, 
yet men are not agreed which of them ought to be preferred ; and many yet 
deny that any of them were those written by Ignatius. I shall not interpose 
in this contest; only I must say, that if any of his genuine writings do yet 
remain, yet the corruption and interpolation of them for many ages must needs 
much impair the authority of what is represented in them as his ; nor am I 
delivered from these thoughts by the late, either more sound or more maimed, 
editions of them ; and the truth is, the corruption and fiction of epistolical 
writings in the first ages was so intolerable, as that very little in that kind is 
preserved sincere and unquestionable. — Works, edited by Russel, 1826. vol. xx. 
p. 147. 



1689. 

Spanheim (Frid.), Summa Histories Ecclesiastics. Lugd. Bat. 1689. 12mo. 

Non verb tacendus Ignatius Episcopus vel Propositus Ecclesise Antiojchense, 
Apostolorum discipulus et auditor, martyr sanctissimus, Trajani anno x. Mree 
vulg. cviii. Hunc in Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis habent Yeteres omnes, post 
Eusebium, ne dicam Irenseum, et Originem citantes Ignatiana. Sane ejus 
Epistolse septem, in vinculis scriptse/pra? reliquis, a pluribus approbantur, ad 
Smyrncsos, ad Polycarpum, ad Ephesios, ad Magnesias, ad Philadelphenses, ad 
Trallianos, et ad Romanos, ut ab Isaaco Vossio Greece, ab Usserio Armachano 
Latine, vulgatee fuerunt, omnium purgatissimse. Reliquse, sub Ignatii nomine, 
seu Latinse seu Greece, tacita? Eusebio et Hieronymo, omnium consensione in 
supposititiis habentur. Sed nec leves sunt Salmasii, Blondelli, Dalleei, Laroquii, 
dubitandi de prioribus rationes. Quum sint in iis plurima, quee Ignatio poste- 
riora videantur, phraseologise, facta, heereses, ritus, disciplines ratio. — P. 88. 



1692. 

Schelstrate (Eman.), Antiquitas Ecclesice dissertationibus monimentis ac notis 
illustrata. 1692. 2 Vol. fol. 
Nec obstat his omnibus, quod Ignatius teste Eusebio, cum e portu Smyr- 



APPENDIX. 



iti 



nensi solvisset, Troademque venisset, privatim ad Polycarpum Smyrnensium 
episcopum litteras dederit, et in iis juxta editionem laudatam scripserit. Decet 
Polycarpe Deo beatissime concilium congregare Deo decentissimum, et ordinare 
aliquem, quern dilectum valde habetis, et impigrum, qui poterit Dei Cursor vocari, 
et hunc dignificari, ut vadens in Syriam glorificet vestram impigram charitatem 
in gloriam Dei. Quamvis enim in Grseco legatur Xeiporovrjcrai ordinare ; hsec 
tamen nequaquam de manus impositione Episcopi Antiocheni intelligi possunt, 
sed tantum de alicujus viri electione, qui munus Cursoris impleret, ut Antio- 
chiam pergeret, et litteras, aliaque perferret. Unde Polycarpus ipse in sua ad 
Philadelphienses epistola testatur : " Scripsistis ad me et vos, et Ignatius, ut si 
quis forte in Syriam proficisceretur, vestras litteras eb deferret. Quod quidem 
perficiam, si tempus opportunum nactus fuei-o, vel ego ipse, vel per alium 
quempiam, cui id munus vestra causa delegabo." Heec Polycarpus ad Phila- 
delphienses apudEusebium libro 3. cap. 36. Ex quibus patet, Tgnatium litteras 
misisse ad Antiochenos, idque per Philadelphienses, quas litteras Polycarpus vel 
per se, vel per alium quempiam se missurum promisit. Non agebatur itaque de 
ordinando per B. Polycarpum Antiocheno Episcopo, sed eligendo viro egregio . 
Xecporoveca itaque significat ibi per suffragia eligere : electus autem ille Antio- 
chiam mittendus erat, ut epistolas Ignatii ad illius civitatis ecclesiam per- 
ferret, et Antiochensem in virtute et fide confirmaret. Unde Divus Hiero- 
nymus libro de Scriptoribus agens de B. Ignatii ad Polycarpum epistola : 
Scripsit proprie ad Polycarpum, inquit, commendans Mi Antiochensem Ecclesiam. 
Et ante D. Hieronymum Eusebius libro 3. cap. 36. Ignatius a Smyrna 
ulterius progressus, cum Troadem venisset, inde ad Philadelphienses litteras 
dedit, et ad Smyrnoeorum Ecclesiam, privatimque ad Polycarpum eorum episco- 
pum, quern cum Apostolicum virum esse plane cognosceret, ipsi, tanquam bonus 
ac fidelis Pastor, gregem Antiochenae Ecclesice commendavit ; rogans ut omni 
cura ac diligentia ilium fovere vellet. Ignatius se absente Ecclesiam Antio- 
chenorum Polycarpo commendavit, de ordinando in sui locum Episcopo nihil 
scripsit, nihil locutus fuit : sed nec scribere, nec loqui potuit, cum Ignatio 
vivente alium Episcopum constituere non licuerit. Unde et ipse Ignatius 
epistola ad Antiochenos : Presbyteri pascite gregem, qui inter vos est, donee 
Deus designaverit eum, qui principatum in vobis habiturus est ; ego enim jam 
immolor, ut Christum lucrifaciam. Ex quibus patet, Presbyteros Antiochenos 
absente Episcopo gregem istius Ecclesiee pascere debuisse, neque ad Poly- 
carpum curam spectasse, nisi in quantum Ignatii litteris ei delegatum erat, ut 
Ecclesiam Antiochensem consilio suo, et adhortationibus juvaret, non vero eis 
Episcopum ordinaret, utpote qui post Ignatii martyrium Antiochise electus, et 
creatus est, ut testatur Eusebius libro 3. cap. 35 : Eo, nimirum Ignatio, 
defuncto, Episcopatum Antiochenos Ecclesiee Heros suscepit. — Tom. ii. p. 249. 



1692. 

Tentzel (Wil. Ernest), Exercitationes Selectee. Lips. 1692. 4to. 
IX. Posthsec dispiciendum est, quse Nostratium Doc tc rum fuerit sententia, 

ii 2 



iv 



APPENDIX. 



notato prius discrimine inter eos, qui ante et post Usserii Vossiique editiones 
scripserunt. Ad priorem classem spectant Centuriatores Magd. Epistolas 
Ignatii omnes pro suspectis dubiisque babentes : quos more suo secutus est 
Lucas Osiander Centur. 1. p. 131. B. Chemnitius in Orat. de lect. PP. judi- 
cavit, multa admixta esse, quce non sunt Ignatii. Joh. Pappus Epit. Histor. 
Eccles. p. 102. Epistolam ad Smyrnenses vel supposititiam vel certe corruptam 
esse censet. Simile judicium post B. Gerhardum Patrol, pp. 58, 59 est B. Dor- 
schei Mysar. Missre c. vii. p. 249. Ignatianas Epistolas adulteratas antiquitus 
fuisse et supposititia multa continere. In posteriori crdine primum locum obtinet 
Tbeologornm nostra eetatis Principes, B. Hulsemannus Patrolog. pp. 975, 976, 
et D. Abr. Calovius, Patronus et Doctor maximus, in Methodo studii Theol. 
p. 300, et in Consid. Arminianismi p. 126. quos sequuntur Theologi ac Phi- 
lologi plurimi, quorum illustria nomina breve cbartse spatium non" capit. 
Censura eorum in boc constitit, ut non omnem quidem prioribus septem Igna- 
tianis yvija-ionjTa derogent, ab omni tamen interpolatione aut mutilatione baud 
esse immunes dicant. Nec aliter poterit judicare, quicunque accuratius pon- 
deraverit tot causas gravissimas, quee summos viros ad banc sententiam feren- 
dam impulerunt : quas utut magno studio tollere conatus sit Pearsonius, non 
omnibus tamen ex fequo ipsum satisfecisse eruditi animadverterunt. Pneterea 
ratio emendandi Greecum textum juxta Latinam versionem, quam inivit Usse- 
rius, non adeo tuta, tantove negotio congrua videtur, cum versio ilia recentior 
sit, quippe circa conf&ia sexti septimive sreculi, conjectante ipso Usserio, 
confecta : nec tanta fide et cura Grsecum exprimat textum, quanta in bis 
monumentis requiritur, ut idem et Pearsonius passim observant : denique quod 
maximum est, editionem Ignatianarum non genuinam, sed inter polatam spu- 
riisque Epistolis auctam sequatur. Quare etiam Usserius Prolegom. c. iv. 
ex ea versione sola integritati suce restitui posse Ignatium polliceri non audet, 
nisi alterius exemplaris subsidium accesssrit ; vel Grceci, cujus ex Bibliotheca 
Florentina obtinendi spes sibi nuper injecta sit non exigua ; vel saltern Syria ci, 
quod Roma reperiri adhuc posse non desperet. Enimvero, quum quadraginta 
ferme annis ab Usserii editione elapsis nemo, quod sciam, Roma? adservatum 
Codicem Syriacum memoraverit, nec probare queat institutum, quo ex ver- 
sione Syra textus Grsecus emendandus foret: videndum est, quae Codicis 
Medicei, quern tantopere praistolatur Usserius, et in sua editione expressit 
Vossius, auctoritas pondusque sit, et num veras et genuinas et testimoniis an- 
tiquorum ubique congruentes exhibeat epistolas, quemadmodum videtur illus- 
tri Vossio. At vero, si accuratius inspiciatur, ab omnibus plane inter- 
polationibus ac mutilationibus liber immunisque baud esse deprehendetur. 
Neque enim ubique ipsi convenit cum veterum Patrum, Theodoreti imprimis, 
allegatis, fatente in Notis plus semel Vossio, quod sane maximum affert prseju- 
dicium. Si enim in illis, qure a veteribus citantur, fides MSti vacillat, quis 
asseverabit, majorem in reliquis ipsi tribuendam esse auctoritatem ? Neqne 
tamen dissimulo, magis cum veterum allegatis convenire Codicem Florentinum, 
quam Augustanum a Paceo editum. Hinc dum in Dissertatione de disciplina 
arcani adversus Schelstratium disputans negavi, locum ex Ignatii Epistola ad 



APPENDIX. 



V 



Smyrnseos a Theodoreto in tertio Dialogo recitatum inveniri in modernis codi- 
cibus seqnutus sum turn Doctorum nostrorum, turn ipsius adversarii adserta, 
antiqnioribus procul dubio editionibus innixa ; sed in Vossiana eura postea de- 
prehendi : quod Petavius etiam monuit lib. xii. de Incarnatione cap. xiii- 
num. 3. neutiquam tamen dissimulans, pro voce Trpocrevxaq Theodoretum in suo 
exemplari habuisse iTpoa-<popa.<;, indeque concludens : Quare Eucharistia est 
irpocrcpopa, id est oblatio, et sacrificium Corporis Christi, quod in cruce pependit, 
ex antiquissimi Grcecorum Patrum Ignatii sincero liquidoque testimonio. Unde 
duo concludimus apprime notanda. Alteram est, Theodoretum ex codice suo 
verba Ignatii descripsisse, ejusque lectionem Codici Mediceo prseferendam esse. 
Alteram, hunc ab antiquis distare. Utrumque confirmari potest ex duobus 
locis, quee idem Theodoretus ex epistola Ignatii ad Ephesios citavit. Priorem 
etiam Athanasius et Gelasius allegarunt, discrepantque omnes a libro Floren- 
tine, ut patet parallelismo apud Usserium cap. iii. Prolegomenorum p. 1 7, qui 
differentiam quidem illam non dissimulat, sed parvi admodum momenti censet. 
At cum Athanasius et reliqui duo ex Codicibus, qui ad manum erant, descripse- 
rint verba Ignatii, fatente Usserio, judicent prudentiores, quanta inter Igna- 
tianos codices jamtum quarto quintove sseculo merit varietas. Stephanus le 
Moyne, torn. ii. Tar. Sacr. p. 160. contendit, Theodoreti setate epistolas Ignatii 
puras et sinceras extitisse ; mox tamen producto Athanasio, et hunc et Theo- 
doretum non ex codice Ignatii locum descripsisse, sed ex memoria statuit ; 
quod nodum secare est, non solvere. Prsecipua codicum differentia in eo con- 
sists, quod in Mediceo, et apud Athanasium legitur yewijrcx; kcu ayewtjro^ apud 
Theodoretum vero yew^rhq e£ ayevvrjrov. Hanc animadvertens Petavius, 
lib. iii. de Incarnatione cap. vi. num.8, suspicatur, ab aliquo commutatum olim 
istum esse locum ; qui cum animadverteret aycwyTov vocabulum proprie attribui 
Patri, et in eo pcrsonalem Ejus proprietatem ab antiquis collocari, veritus sit, ne 
Sabe/liani et Patripassiani unam Patris et Filii personam inde colligerent : 
ideoque rescripserit filium esse yevvfjrov ex ayevv^ra) Patre. Mirum vero est, 
quod asserit Petavius, in codice Florentino, cujus apographum a Vossio acce- 
perit, ita legi, ut apud Theodoretum, quum ipse tamen Vossius ediderit,ut apud 
Athanasium habetur. Nec minus notabilis est differentia, quse inter Theodo- 
retum et librum Mediceum occurrit in posteriori loco epistolse ad Ephesios. 
Theodoretus quippe citat : tva to 6u>]roq rj/jieov KaOapio-dg, observante Usserio 
Prolegom. cap. iv. p. 19 : eandemque lectionem in Catena Grajca in Lucam 
habet Macarius Chryscocephalus, quinti decimi sseculi scriptor, quern idem 
citat Usserius cap. xiix. p. 135. et antiqua hujus epistolce editione usum aperte 
fatetur. Qui ergo factum est, ut Codex Mediceus et Interpres Usserianus aliter 
legant : Tva ru> iradei to vScop Kadapicrri, ut passione aquam purificet 2 Cum 
autem genuinos procul dubio codices consuluerint Theodoretus et Macarius, 
turn Mediceum interpolatum esse manifeste consequitur. 

X. Sunt etiam verba qusedam ab antiquis Ignatio tributa, quse in editione 
Vossiana frustra quseras. Cujusmodi sunt, quse Hieronymus lib. iii. adversus 
Pelagianos Ignatium audaciter scribere refert. Pearsonius quidem P. 1. cap. iii. 
existimat, Hieronymum memoria lapsum pro Barnaba Ignatium posuisse, idem- 



\i 



APPENDIX. 



que ante eum censuit Hugo Menardus in Notis ad epistolam Barnabse. Sed 
quidni eadem scripserit Ignatius, quse vel ex eo hauserit postea supposititius 
Barnabas, vel ex sua sententia pariter edixerit ? Preeterea clarius exemplum 
defectus in Codice Mediceo ostendit Io. Baptista Cotelerius, tom.i. Monu- 
mentorum Ecclesise, cui inter alia inseruit Joannis Antiocheni Orationem in 
donationes Monasteriorum Laicis factas, ubi num. xii. heec ex Ignatio profe- 
runtur : ra> 8e eKKXiia-iav Oeou crKavhakia-avTi ov§e /uaprvpiov aipia, Kara rbv 
deocpopov'lyvaTtov, apKe? eh o-vvx<t)pi]<riv — Ei autem, qui Ecclesiam Dei offen- 
derit, neque rnartyrii sanguis juxta Theophorum Ignatium, ad veniam sufficit. 
Vixit Joannes ille Antiocbenus circa medium sseculi xii. quippe a Leone Isauro 
et Constantino Copronymo, ipsoque adeo bello Iconomachico, ad sua usque 
tempora quadringentos numerat annos. De loco vero Ignatii ab eo producto 
Cotelerii in Notis heec est eiriKpio-iq : Nihil tale legitur in Epistolis S. Ignatii. 
Sed a Chrysostomo Homil. II. in Epistolam ad Ephesios, ubi contra schisma dis- 
serit, similia proferuntur, tanquam viri cujusdam Sancti, cujus nomen non appo- 
nitur. 'Avrjp he tis ayios, inquit beatus Doctor, etVe t< Bokovv etvai roXfxijpov, 
irXrjv a\X o/uco? e^Oey^ero. tl cSe tovto earcv ; Ovde /uaprvpiov alfxa ravrtjv cv- 
vaaQai e^aKe(<peiv rrjv aptapTiav — Dixit autem vir quidem sanctus quiddam, quod 
magnam prce se fert audaciam ; sed tamen est elocutus. Quid hoc est autem ? 
Dixit, ne sanguinem quidem rnartyrii posse delere hoc peccatum. At enim quis 
dubitaverit, Ignatium a Chrysostomo intelligi ? Quis nescit veterum Ecclesise 
Doctorum morem, nomina Scriptorum, si quos allegant, nonnunquam subticen- 
tium? quemadmodum Irena3us et Origines Ignatii apoptbegmata proferentes 
nomen ejus non addunt. Causam si quadras, cur hoc loco Chrysostomus idem 
fecerit, cogita, num conveniens fuerit, audacise coram universo populo ilium 
virum insimulare, quem alibi peculiari sermone summis adfecerat laudibus. 

XL Notandum porro Codicem Florentinum in cseteris a corruptionibus liberum 
haud esse, adeo ut Vossius in Notis nunc verba qucedam librarii culpa in epistola 
ad Smyrnseos excidisse putarit : nunc locum ex omnibus Ignatianis corruptissi- 
mum in ea ad Trallianos deprehenderit : nunc conquestus sit, tarn inveterata in 
his Epistolis esse vulnera, ut tempus quo ilia inflicta sint, propius Ignatii quam 
nostrum accedat sceculum. Similiter Usserius in prfefat. Appendicis Ignat. 
conqueritur, non reperisse se Mediceum codicem, qualem nobis Turrianus com- 
mendaverat, emendatissimum. Idem fatetur Hammondus Dissert. II. cap. ii. 
et Pearsonius Prolegom. cap. vi. Quapropter Hammondus etiam coactus fuit 
ad alias Orbis Bibliothecas provocare, in quibus tamen puriorem Codicem ad- 
versari hactenus nemo retulit. Ex quibus omnibus consequitur, genuinas 
Ignatii Epistolas hodie non superesse, sed variis modis alibi interpolatas, alibi 
decurtatas in Usserii Vossiique editionibus existere. Et cum Interpreti Latino 
Anglicano exemplar Greecum Elorentinum apprime con venire, Vossius, Usse- 
rius, Hammondus ac Pearsonius ultro fateantur : interpres autem interpolatum, 
et spuriis Epistolis auctum Ignatianarum Codicem expresserit, quis aliter de 
hodie extantibus epistolis judicare potest ? Quare non desunt, qui lectionem 
interpolati Gra3ci Codicis nonnunquam preeferant Mediceo, ut nuper fecit 
Bichardus Simonius adversus ipsum Vossium disputans, de quo ex personati 



APPENDIX. 



Vll 



Hieronymi le Camus Theologi Parisiensis judicio, p. 24. nonnulla attulisse suffi- 
ciet: Jam ad Ignatii locum, qui sumptus fuit ex illius Epistola ad Philadel- 
phienses venio, ex quo posse ostendi tempus, quo primum Ebraici Codices corrumpi 
cozperint, Vossius existimat. Sed quamfcede etiam in hoc erratum fuerit, demonstra- 
verat Simonius ipsius Ignatii mentem verbis Hikes claris et apertis explicans. Nunc 
Vossius Ignatii sensum conatur obscurare. Miratur Simonii supinitatem, qui 
cum se criticum profiteatur, spurii Ignatii verba addtixerit ; affertque Vossius ipsa 
Ignatii verba, tit concipiuntur in codice Florentino, nec quidquam in illis mutan- 
dum esse affirmat. Sed quam feliciter hoc negotium illi succedat, jtivat expen- 
dere. Simonius Ignatii verba non quidem omnino tit extant in Florentino 
Codice, qui manifeste hoc loco corruptus est et obscurus, protulit ; sed ex interpo- 
late Codice, qui isto loco interpolatus non est, immo simplicior est Florentino, et 
vetustam lectionem magis referens. Interpolatum enim Epistolarum Ignatii 
codicem in omnibus interpolatum esse nemo dixerit, ne quidem ipse Vossius. Ex- 
islimavil igitur Simonius, hie Florentinum Codicem, qui multum pros se fert 
obicxritatis, corrigendum esse ex alio Codice, qui simplicior est, cujusque verba 
clara sunt ; cum ipse Vossius hoc ipso loco legendum putet apxaiois, ut habet Codex 
interpolatus, non vero apxeioiq, tit extat ino Codice Florentino. Melior est,inqtiit 
Vossius, lectio Pseudo- Ignatii, quam et sequentia videntur approbare. Licuit 
igitur Simonio sequi P seudo-I gnatii lectionem, ubi constat ilium interpolatum non 
esse, melior emque sensum, quam Codex Florentinus efficit. Est et alius in eadem 
ad Philadelphienses epistola Ignatii locus de conjugio Paulli, quern adhuc hodie 
ut genuinum laudare solent, ut loan. Adamus Osiander Disput. de conjugio 
Paulli, Cap. iii. num. 12. et 13. Casp. Loescherus de Latrociniis in scriptores 
publicos num. 65. Eberhard Kudolph. Rothius de Nicolaitis cap. ii. num.6. 
Hi aliique similes non codicem Florentinum, sed antea vulgatos sequi debent, 
cujus generis procul dubio est Noribergensis MStus, in quo Paulli etiam nomen 
extare audio. Nam in Florentino totius hujus de Apostolorum conjugio periodi 
nullum occurrit vestigium ; unde Pearsonius, p. ii. Vindiciarum cap. x. Dallaii 
hanc in rem disputata tribus verbis perstringit : Capite xx. de solo Paulli con- 
jugio agit, et Interpolatorem ferit. Quare etiam Fridericus Spanhemius in 
Quaternione Dissertationum, p. 71. testimonium illud pro Ignatiano haud 
agnoscit. His prseiverat Franciscus Turrianus Libro i. pro Canonibus Apo- 
stolorum cap ii. Ignatius, inquiens, in vetere inter pretatione Latina manu- 
scripta epistolce ad Philadelph. quce in Vaticano est, non habet, quod in Grceca 
epistola nuper in publicum emissa (Paceei editionem intelligit) legitur de Paullo 
inter eos, qui uxorem habuerunt. Hue sine dubio respexit Colomesius initio 
Paralipomenorum ad Cavii Cbartophylacem, pag. 2. Antiquam Ignatii epistola- 
rum versionem Latinam ex Bibliotheca Vaticana latidat Fr. Turrianus, (pb infi- 
nitam ejus lectionem scepius a nobis advocandus) in Defensione Canonum 
Apostolicorum, circa initium. De hac versione ne 'ypv quidem Ignatii Epistola- 
rum editores. Meretur sane bsec Latina versio, ut diligentiu^ inquiratur et 
cum impressis conferatur: quod fortasse illustris Ciampinus in Collatione His- 
toric Ecclesiasticse a se instituta proponet, orbique litterario aperiet. Mihi 
enim videtur eadem esse cum Usseriana, quippe quse etiam caret verbis con- 
troversis de Paulli Conjugio. 



via 



APPENDIX. 



XII. Ut igitur libere sententiam meam edisseram, sic animum composui, ut 
nihil pro Ignatiano habeam, nisi quod a Patribus priorum quatuor post marty- 
rium Ignatii sajculorum sanctissimo viro tribuitur : a qua opinione non adeo 
absunt Centuriatores Magdeburgenses. Qui autem sequentibus vixerunt setati- 
bus, ut Antiochus Monachus, Joannes Damascenus, &c , non habuerunt amplius 
germanas purasque Ignatii Epistolas, sed varie interpolatas et novis et spuriis 
au^tas, prout ostendit Usserius : eatenus tamen tanquam verorum Ignatii verbo- 
rum testes admitti possunt, quatenus cum antiquoribus illis aliquo modo consen- 
tiunt. Atque hue collimaturos spero omnes, qui epistolas Ignatii interpolatas esse 
hodie agnoscunt. Quo enim alioquin fundamento pro Ignatianis venditabuntur, 
qua? pro talibus, stante hoc judicio, haberi neutiquam possunt ? Quo artificio 
secernentur ra Kt(3St]\a kou to. SoKi/ua ? quibus characteribus internoscere dabi- 
tur ea, quse Ignatius scripsit, a transmutatis et adjectis ? Novi non deesse inter 
eruditos, qui hoc negotium facile confici dicant. Sed dicunt saltern, non probant ; 
nec suo ostendunt exemplo, rei procul dubio difficultate deterriti. Optimus 
dijudicandi modus consistit in diligenti Manuscriptorum Codicum antiquorum 
bonseque notse collatione, quorum ope interpolata et corrupta facile agnosci et 
ab Auctoris verbis distingui possunt. At in Ignatianis hoc artificium locum 
non habet. Per universam quippe Europam, quantum constat, non reperitur 
Codex melior Florentino sive Mediceo. Cujus defectus cum supra monstrati 
sint, turn, nisi ex Asia aut aliunde novus ac genuinus emergat, de restituendis in 
integrum Ignatii Epistolis plane desperandum erit. Vidimus hactenus rationes 
oppido prsegnantes 7re|0( yv^cnor^Toq Ignatiarum dubitandi. — P. 58. 



1699. 

Ittig (L. T.), Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicovum. Lips. 1699. 12mo. 
Et laudanda quidem Ruinarti industria, qui hanc epistolam ad Romanos, 
qualem in Colbertino codice invenit, in addendis ad acta Martyrum sincera et 
selecta publici juris fecit. Num vero plane genuina li£ec sit epistola ad Roma- 
nos Ignatiana eruditis dispiciendum relinquo et ad Vossii editionem redeo. 
P. 275. 

Etsi autem septem Ignatii epistolas ab Eusebio recensitas genuinas dici posse 
baud inficier, et pleraque in istis epistolis, quales e Florentino Codice prodie- 
runt, autorem Ignatium spirare existimem, asserere tamen haud ausim, quod 
Elorentinus ille codex omni ex parte genuinus sit, et Ignatii epistolje per tot 
seecula ab omni interpolation liberfe ad nostram usque setatem permanserint. 
P. 287. 



1699. 

Grabe (J. E.), Spicilegium SS. Patrum. Oxoniae. 1699. 2 vol. 8vo. 
Jam septem genuinarum S. Ignatii epistolarum historiam, ordinem quo scriptse 
sunt, varias editiones, diversa de eis eruditorum judicia, etc., recenserem, nisi 
TT^prins et Pearsonius aliique eorum ductu ista egregie prfestitissent. De 



APPENDIX. 



IX 



auctore tamen interpolation-is genuinarum et suppositionis spur: arum Epistola- 
rum, hujusque occasione aliqua in Notis addam, et sinceritatem insuper Codicis 
Florentini adversus objectiones Tentzelii defendam : ex quibus simul patebit, 
alia? adhuc a B. Martyre lit eras exaratas quidem, sed deperditas esse. Ad An- 
tiochenos prtecipue eum scripsisse nullus dubito : neque enim proprii gregis 
oblivisci poterat, qui alias Ecclesias Uteris cobortabatur, ac in fide confirmabat. 
Ex genuina igitur ad Antiocbenos epistola puto petitas a Damascene- duas sen- 
tentias. p. 24. recitandas, cum in spuria non extent. Ceeterum ad finem prse- 
fationis properans, de epistola ad Eomanos solum tribus verbis moneo, earn ab 
Usserio et Vossio in nullo MS. Codice Greece sinceram inventam, sed ope 
antiqua? Latins? versionis ab interpolatione defsecatam fuisse, donee earn anti- 
quisActis insertam nuper Euinartus edidit: cujus exemplar hie exhibere, ac ut 
appareat, quam parum Usserius in editione sua aberrant, diversas ejus lectiones 
ad enjusque pagina? oram annotare volui. Neque tamen dissimulare possum, 
et istud non omnino sincerum, sed loca Scriptura?, 2 Cor. iv. et Matth. xvi. 
aliaque aliqua addita videri, qua? a veteri versione absunt. — Vol. ii. p. 8. 



1701. 

Le Nain de Tillemont (Sebastien), Memoires pour servir a I'Histoire Eccle- 
siastique. Paris, 1701. 4to. 
Note vin. Sur diverse* lettres attribuees a Saint Ignace. Nous avons sou- 
tenu contre Usserius dans la note 6, la verite de l'epistre que nous avons de 
S. Ignace a Saint Polycarpe. Mais nous n' avons pas les mesmes raisons pour 
defendre les autres lettres attribuees a S. Ignace, qu' Usserius a rejettees 
comme fausses. Daille accorde aisement qu'il en a ecrit plusieurs, outre celles 
qui sont marquees par Eusebe : et il n'y a aucun moyen de douter qu'il n'ait 
ecrit au moins a son Eglise d'Antioche, sur ce que Dieu avoit appaise la perse- 
cution. On peut mettre dans la mesme classe les trois autres qu' Usserius et 
Vossius ont trouvees dans les manuscrits avec celles qu'on reconnoist pour in- 
dubitables, savoircelle a Marie de Cassoboles, celle a l'Eglise deTarse, et celle 
a Heron diacre d'Antioche : et examiner ensuite s'il faut rejetter ces lettres par 
la seule raison qu' Eusebe ne les a pas connues, parcequ'elles n'estoient point de 
celles que S. Polycarpe avoit envoyees aux Philippiens. Que si Ton trouve que 
cette raison ne suffit pas estant seule, il restera a examiner ces lettres en elles 
mesmes ; ce que nous n'avons pas cru devoir entreprendre ici. Nous remar- 
quons seulement que nous ne voyons pas moyen de satisfaire a. ce que la lettre 
a ceux d'Antioche ne leur dit rien sur la paix. — Vol. ii. p. 581. 



1706. 

Basin age (Sam.), Annates Politico-Ecclesiastici. Roter. 1706. 3 Vol. fol. 
Quasi vero prora puppisque Religionis penderet ex qua?stione critica. In- 



X 



APPENDIX. 



dulgentiores sane nobis erunt Ignatiarum Epistolarum patroni, etsi succenseant 
viris clarissimis Blondello, Salmasio, Dallseo, Larroquano, qui quas ex Bibliotheca 
Florentina doctissimus Isaac Yossius edidit Epistolas pro genuinis non babuere. 
Quorum sententise lubenter nos comites addhnus, etsi non indiligenter legeriraus, 
quse vir magni nominis, Joannes Pearson, in Vindiciis Ignatianis scripsit. Totas 
sane et eruditionis et ingenii sui vires effudit, ut editee a Tossio Epistolee ascribe- 
rentur Ignatio. Ex eo fonte hortos irrigarunt suos viri ex Monacborum grege 
eruditi, Natalis Alexander Dominicanus, et Nicolaus Le Nourri, Ordinis S. Bene- 
dict!, qui invictis rationum monumentis, germano parenti suo Ignatio Epistolas 
se restituisse arbitratur. Duplici argumentorum genere utitur Pearson 6 7ravu, 
quse externa sunt et interna. Externa a testimoniis, interna ab ipsis Episto- 
lis. Testimonia quod attinet, ostendit capite secundo Yindiciarum, quod nullum 
seculum suis testibns careat, a secundo quo primum nates, ad decimum quintum, 
quo primum impresses sunt Epistolas. Quse, si veruni volumus, ingens testi- 
moniorum strues, ad eruditionem Yindicis declarandam facere potest, ad pro- 
bandum non potest. Cum testimonia Autorum, qui post tertium floruere 
seculum, prioribus innitantur, nec plus sit in eo suffragio virium, quam in 
Polycarpi, Ireneei, Originis, Eusebii. Potuisset ergo celeberrimus Yindiciarum 
autor, et sibi, et lectoribus tanti laboris exhauriendi dare immunitatem. Prfe- 
terea cum certo certius sit, interpolatas fuisse Ignatii Epistolas, in dubium 
quoque revocari posset, an non et corruptionis aliquid passse sint illse, quas ex 
Bibliotbeca Florentina Yossius suppeditavit, cum et in ipsis ea reperiantur, 
quse non sunt Ignatii JEvi. Nec pauese illse latinise, quse etiamnum in Origine 
extant aut Eusebio, utut sincerse prsedicantur, satis argumento prsebent, ut 
Epistolas corruptionis esse omnis immunes statuam. Quam si tueremur sen- 
tentiam, desumptum a testibus caderet argumentum. In promptu enim re- 
sponsio esset, Ignatii quidem Epistolas ad nos pervenisse, sed adulteras, et ab 
impuris manibus nonnibil contaminatas, quod quomodo refelli posset, nulli 
videmus. Quod si magis placet, totas ab Ignatio Epistolas abjudicare, non ideo 
vincent earum patroni. Primum clariss. Pearsonio testimonium ex Polycarpo 
petitur. Epistolas omnes Ignatii, quas ad me scripsit, et quascunque demum 
apud nos reperire potuimus, quemadmodum nobis mandastis, ad vos misimus. 
Quse leguntur in Polycarpo ad Philippenses Epistola. Hinc acutissime col- 
ligit Yindex Ignatianus. An ullo modo verisimile est Epistolas a tanto Martyre 
exaratas, a tanto editas atque laudatas Epistolce etiam illi subjectas, qua per 
tot scecula publice lecta earam memoriam perpetuo redintegrabat, statim periisse 
et ab omnium oculis ereptas fuisse. Hoc argumenti dilatat Le Nourii Disserta- 
tione Septima, c. iii. p. 151. Iners tamen esse ipsamet experientia testatur. 
Laodicea Epistolam scriptam fuisse, a Colossensibus legendam, Paulus docuit 
Apostolus. Et cum perlecta fuerit apud vos Epistola, facite ut etiam in Laodi- 
censium ecclesia recitetur, et scriptam Laodicea vos quoque legatis. Col. iv. 16. 
Non celebriores erant Ignatii Epistolai, non ilia sanctiores, quse Laodicea scripta 
est, ornata coelestis Apostoli testimonio, et in ecclesiis Apostolicis, palam et publice 
lecta. Periit tamen funditus, et ab omnium oculis erepta fuit. Non ecclesia- 
rum veneratio, non testimonium Apostolorum, non scrinia Cbristianorum, im- 



APPENDIX. 



xi 



pedimento fiiere, quominus ex mortalium evanuerit oculis. Quid, nonne ex 
verbis Polycarpi liquet, non unam ad se ab Ignatio Epistolam scriptam 
fuisse ? Ta? 'EiriaroXaq 'lyvariov, ras nre/u(p6eicra<; f/fuv vtt avrov — Epistolas 
omnes Ignatii, quas ad me scripsit. Ecce plures Epistolas, qu?e ab ilia quoque 
distinguuntur, cujus mentionem fecerat paucis supra lineis : Scripsistis ad me, et 
vos et Ignatius. Atqui una tantum superest Ignatii ad Polycarpum Epistola, quse 
a viris etiam eruditissimis, Usserio Bonaque, atro carbone notatur. Periit et 
sancta Philippensium ad Polycarpum Epistola. Ergone licebit, tragico more 
exclamare : Numquid omnes Ecclesice et Christiani, tantis animis, tantdque arte, 
in illarum Epistolarum perniciem extinctionemque conspirarunt 9 Patribus, qui 
secundo floruere seculo ignotse fuerunt Ignatianaj Epistolse ; ignotee Justino, 
Theophilo Antiocbeno, Ireneeo, Clementi Alexandrino, Tertulliano, qui nun- 
quam eas adhibent refellendis Hsereticis, licet Apocrypbis libris sffipenumero 
utantur. — Vol. ii. p. 20. 



1710. 

Whistox (William), An Essay upon the Epistles of Ignatius. London, 1710. 8vo. 

I sball shew, by internal characters, that the Smaller Epistles cannot be the 
genuine ones, nor so early as the days of Ignatius. (l) In the Smaller Epi- 
stle to the Ephesians, in all the copies, our Saviour is expressly affirmed to be 
ayewrjTos, ingenitus, unhegotten ; which is so impossible for Ignatius to say, 
or any of his time, that no one, till the days of Athanasius, ever durst mention 
a tiling so notoriously contrary to the Christian Religion. Nay, if we are 
willing to suppose all the MSS. mistaken, and make it ayevtjroq, unmade, yet 
will the affirmation be still not much better, 



And Theodorit (the first author who for certain 

cited the Smaller edition, or one very like it) read here yewtjrbq e£ cfyew^Tov, 
according to the sense of the Larger edition ; so that his copy was not herein 
so corrupt as the present smaller edition. Yet is Athanasius supposed to quote 
this Smaller edition as to these very words. (2) In this Smaller edition our 
Saviour is expressly stil'd Ao'70? al'dios, the Eternal Word\ which epithet was 
never applied to him by any Christian till the fourth century. And since 
neither Athanasius himself, nor any others of the orthodox, ever then quoted 
this text of Ignatius, which yet would have been of greater consequence than 
all that they said in that controversy, 'tis highly probable that they never 
saw that Smaller edition of these Epistles in which it is, even in all the three 
copies. (3) In the same Smaller edition, in the very same place, these words 
are added, ovk airo <riyr}<; irpoeXOoov, that he is the Eternal Word, not proceed- 
ing from a-fyrj, Silence, that famous Valentinian origin of things. The allusion 
here to the famous <riyrj of the Valentinians, or of Marcellus from them, is so 



( ') Magnes. c. 8. p. 310. edit. Jacobson. 



Xll 



APPENDIX. 



plain, that the greatest patrons of these Smaller epistles are ashamed directly 
to deny it, though it he so very strong and almost undeniable an argument 
against them. For 'tis undoubted, from Irenseus 1 , that Valentinus himself 
was not publickly known as any famous Heretic, nor came from Egypt to 
Rome till the Pontificate of Hyginus, that is, not till between A.D. 126 and 
130, or between ten and fourteen years after the death of Ignatius. Nay, 'tis 
also plain from Tertullian, an almost cotemporary writer, and very near the 
place also, that Valentinus was alive, and at Rome in the Pontificate of Eleu- 
therus afterward: that is, between A.D. 170 and 185. So that those who 
make his trtyrj famous at Antioch, or in Asia, before A.D. 116, the latest year 
possible for the death of Ignatius, do merely serve an hypothesis ; and assert 
what is highly improbable, if not next to impossible to be true ; without, nay 
against all the Original Testimonies thereto relating. Indeed, the learned are 
here driven to a great strait, and would fain affirm that some of the other 
ancienter heretics had introduced the a-tyrj before Valentinus : but still without 
one single ancient testimony for such an hypothesis. They tell us, indeed, that 
Eusebius 2 ascribes it to Simon Magus, in these words; kclt clvtov exetVov tov 
adecov aipecriodToov ctpx'iyov, o? to. aOea §oyjuar(^cov a'Kecpaivero \eyeoi>, rjv Qebq ko.1 
aiyrj. Whereas, by this Ringleader of these sorts of Hereticks, Eusebius plainly 
means Valentinus, and no other ; as any one may learn from Epiphanius 3 . 
And I wonder that anybody should expound him otherwise. So that this Testi- 
mony is so far from a confirmation, that 'tis rather a confutation of the fore- 
going evasion. We shall see anon that this character will best suit the latter 
days of Marcellus and Athanasius, long afterwards. (4) In the same smaller 
Epistles we have this passage of some Hereticks then arisen in the Church : 
Fivxapto-Tiaq kcu Trpo<revx*i<; airexovrai, Bia to prj 6p.o\oyeiv rrjv evxapicrriav <rapKa 
etval rod (rwT/jpo? fipicov 'l>/o-ou Xpicrrov tt)v inrep ap.apriu>v ^juwv iraOova-av, 
?]v rrj xPWT° T, l ri ° irarrjp ijyecpev. These Hereticks, it seems, absented 
from the Christian Assemblies, because they did not own the Eucharist to be 
the Flesh of Christ which suffered for them, and was raised again by the good 
Will of the Father. This is a strange passage indeed ; and so far from the age 
of Ignatius, when Christians did not permit any Hereticks to communicate with 
them ; and when there are no footsteps of any such Hereticks in the world ; that it 
could hardly be so early as the middle of the fifth century, when yet these 
Epistles are certainly cited by Theodorit. Perhaps 'tis a still later interpola- 
tion, even in the smaller copies ; yet it is in all the MSS., both the Greek one 
at Florence, and the two Latin ones in England. These four internal charac- 
ters of times later than the death of Ignatius, seem to me so strong, that the 
arguments for the antiquity of the same Epistles ought to be next to demon- 
strative ere they can be compared to them. — P. 6. 

I observe further, that the Abridger, as well as Eusebius, seems never to 
have seen more than those seven Epistles m Polycarp's collection. And ac- 
cordingly, those to Tarsus, to Antioch, and to Hero, have suffered no altera- 

( 1 ) Ackers. Heeres. Book iii. c. 4. ( 2 ) De Ecc l- Theolog. Book ii. c. 9. 

( 3 ) Epiphan. Hseres. 72. sect. 7. 



APPENDIX. 



Xlll 



tions at all. Yet 'tis strange that these Epistles, most plainly and indisputably 
of the Larger sort, and not less favourable to the Arians than the rest, if no 
other than Interpolated ones, should alone be preserved, and that by the Ortho- 
dox too all along, and their originals utterly lost : Nay, that those originals 
should themselves never be certainly heard of in all the past writers and histo- 
ries of the Church. I desire the admirers of the Smaller Edition to give a 
rational account of the strange case of these three Epistles also : for they appear 
to be genuine, and exactly of the same nature, stile, genius, doctrine, and time 
with the rest of the Larger Epistles. Nay, they are in the Medicean Greek, and 
in the two English Latin copies, with the Smaller, as well as in all but one of 
the Larger copies, both Greek and Latin, that are known among us, as I have 
already observed. I take notice, that the particular occasion and time of the 
epitomizing these Epistles may be in some measure guessed at by a passage 
in Eusebius against Marcellus, which has been in part alledged already, but 
which must be here set down entirely, in these words : A §e MapKeAAo? eroA/jia 
inroTLdeodai, iraXat fj.ev Xeycov elvai tov Qeov, xat riva r\<Tvylav apa tw Geoo wo- 
ypa<poov eavrcp, kot avrov bkeIvov tov dOecov aipecricoTcov dp^ybv, o?, ra (idea 
BoyfxarL^ojv airefyaiveTO, Xeyoov, Qebq xat a-iyf f^era §rj rrjv triyrjv xal tjjv r\<rv- 
yiav irpoekdeiv tov \6yov tov Qeov ev dpxd T ^ Koa-fxoirouaq SpavTiKy evepyeia. 
The forementioned text, in the Smaller epistles, oq ea-nv avrov Xoyoq at&oq, ovk 
dxo o-tyrjq irpoeXOwv, bears so plain an allusion to this Heretical notion of Mar- 
cellus from the Yalentinians, and seems so plainly inserted to palliate and ex- 
cuse the same, that 'tis highly probable it was inserted by Marcellus's great 
friend, Athanasius, who mended his notion, or at least by some of his followers, 
in the fourth century. — P. 42. 

I observe, that we do not find these Smaller Epistles certainly quoted by any but 
Theodorit and Gelasius till the sixth century of the Church. Tho', indeed, 
when these extracts were so favourable to orthodoxy ; and the original Epistles 
so Heretical and Arian, 'tis no wonder that the Smaller spurious copies spread 
into several parts of the Church afterwards, and pass'd with several of those 
Ignorant Ages for the genuine Epistles themselves. Tis rather a wonder, that 
while but one single copy of the most famous and undoubted Epistle of Clement 
to the Corinthians is now known in Christendom, so many copies, both Greek 
and Latin, should be preserved of the Larger and original Epistles of Ignatius ; 
nay, and those more numerous than of the Smaller Abridgments, even at this day. 
P. 44. 



1710. 

Acta Eruditorum anno mdccx. 
Quam varise prostent Epistolarum Ignatii editiones, quantseque de eis ortse 
sint inter eruditos controversise, alienum est ab hoc loco recensere. Factum 
hoc jam est a celeb, nostro quondam Ittigio in dissertatione, Bibliotheca Patrum 
Apostolicorum prsefixa, §. 84. sqq. et p. 260 sqq. Illud autem prsetermitti non 
debet, ab Anglis illis, quos hierarchicos et Episcopales vocant, ex omnibus 



xiv 



APPENDIX. 



Ignatio tributis Epistolis septem probari, a Vossio et Usserio editas, nempe ad 
Smyrneeos, ad Polycarpum, ad Ephesios, ad Magnesios, ad Philadelphienses, ad 
Trallianos, et ad Romanos. Has illi libenter pro genuinis admittunt, prop- 
terea quod inde contra Genevensis discipline cultores dilucide probari possit, 
discrimen inter Episcopos et Presbyteros jam Ignatii fevo observatum. Contra 
confictas omnino et subdititias eas esse, contenderunt alii doctrina et judicio 
praistantissimi viri, Salmasius, Blondellus, Albertinus, Dallseus, Larroquanus, 
Samuel Basnagius, nec Spanbemio juniori refragante ; quibus ex nostris post 
Centuriatores Magdeburgicos et Martinum Chemnitium accessere Josua 
Arndius et Tenzelius. Nec facile lector ab omni partium studio alienus horum 
posteriorum sententiam damnare poterit, quippe quam Canon ille criticus fir- 
mat : Quicumque liber non refert animum et affectum ejus, cujus pros se nomen 
fert, sed plane diversum, is non potest non esse supposititius. Uti enim hinc 
recte colligimus, Pauli ad Senecam epistolas esse viroj3oXtiua / iov<;, cum haudqua- 
quam spirent robur illud animi, sapientiam et affectum ilium Christianum, 
quo Paulum constat fuisse prseditum : ita nec vitio cuiquam verti posse vide- 
tur, qui praster alias Ignatio perperam tributas Epistolas, etiam septem illas, 
Anglis Episcopalibus nimis caras, repudiat, cum omnia in illis sint frigida, 
jejuna, inepti tumoris affectatseque grandiloquentise plena. Nec multum earum 
patronos tutoresque juvat Eusebii ac Hieronymi, easdem nominatim laudan- 
tium, autoritas : cum non ignotum sit, ab hoc etiam putidas illas nsenias, qu?e 
sub Pauli nomine ad Senecam extant, probatas esse, et plerosque Ecclesise 
Patrum non tarn fuisse acutos, quin Sibyllinis carminibus aliisque hujus fur- 
furis libellis imponi sibi paterentur. Prseterea dubitari non potest, quin in 
Critica omni qusestione argumentum externum (quale est id ab Hieronymi et 
Eusebii citatione ductum) interno, quod paulo ante prolatus canon criticus 
continet, sit postponendum. — P. 196. 



1722. 

Oudin (Casim.) Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesice Antiquis. Francofurti. 
1722. 3 Vol. fol 

Nos ad ambiguitatem omnem et sequivccationem amoliendam, missis procul 
argumentis omnibus, quse vel interpolationibus ac laciniis fulciuntur, vel ex sex 
posterioribus Epistolis, quas et Vossius et Usserius falsas bona fide fatentur, ac- 
cipiuntur, has tantum rationes producemus, quibus impugnantur Epistolas illas 
sex vel septem Ignatii Martyris, ab Eusebio et D. Hieronymo recensitse, juxta 
earn editionem, tarn Latinam veterem quam anno 1642 in 8vo Oxonias. ex 
MSS. Anglicanis in lucem publicam Jacobus Usserius protulit, quam Grsecam 
vel Grseco-Latinam ab Isaaco Vossio ex MS. Codice Bibliothecse Elorentinee 
Medicese, anno 1646 in 4to. Amstelomdami impressam, quas solas germanas turn 
eruditi hodie Pontificii, turn Angli etiam reformati censent. Vide qua? dixi- 
mus supra de Epistola S. Ignatii ad Romanos Greece jam edita, cap. 5. Disser- 
tations de scriptis Sancti Clementis Romani Episcopi. 



APPENDIX. 



XV 



Caput Quint um. Ostenditur variis rationibus, Epistolas Ignatii Antiocheni, 
qualiter etiam a Jacobo Usserio et Isaaco Vossio editae sunt, esse spurias et 
adult erinas. 

Dicimus itaque post Dallseum, Epistolas septem Ignatii nomine editas tarn 
Graece quam Latine, esse Antiocheno huic Episcopo suppositas, paucis ex eodem 
verbotenus contractis argumentis. — P. 88. 



1724. 

Lampe (Frid. Adol.) Commentarius Analytico — Exegeticus tarn liter alis quam 
realis Evangelii secundum Joannem. Amstelodami, 1724. 3 Vol. 4to. 
Epistolas Ignatii, qua; putantur, aut supposititias aut sane admodum corrup- 
tas esse, ita ut ex iis tuta traditionis Ecclesiastics subsidia peti non possint, 
post Salmasium et Blondellum data opera demonstrarunt Gul. Ernestus Tenze- 
lins Exercitationibus selectis Exerc. iii. Joh. Dallseus in tractatu de scriptis, 
quse sub Dionysii Areopagitee, et Ignatii nominibus circumferuntur, toto libro 
secundo, ejusque contra Joannem Pearsonium defensor, Matthseus Larroquanus 
in observationibus ad Pearsonianas Ignatii Vindicias dvovvfAcoq conscriptis. — 
Vol.i. p. 184. 



1734. 

Beausobre (Isaac de), Histoire Critique de Manichee et du Manicheisme. 
Amsterdam, 1 734. 4to. 

Je ne veux, ni defendre, ni combattre l'authenticite des Lettres de St. 
Ignace. Si elles ne sont pas veritables, elle ne laissent pas d'etre fort anciennes ; 
et l'opinion, qui me paroit la plus raisonnable est que les plus pures ont ete 
interpolees. — Vol. i. p. 378. not. 3. 



1743. 

Lardner (Nathaniel), Credibility of the Gospel History. 12 Volumes, 
1733—1755. 

I have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied, upon 
that comparison, that the Larger are an interpolation of the Smaller, and not 
the Smaller an epitome or abridgment of the Larger. I desire no better evi- 
dence in a thing of this nature. And the Quotations of Ignatius do also better 
agree with the Smaller than the Larger epistles, as may be seen in Archbishop 
Usher's Dissertations. But whether the Smaller themselves are the genuine 
writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much 
disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever 



xvi 



APPENDIX. 



positiveness some may have shewn on either side, I must own I have found it 
a very difficult question. — Pt. 1 1. Chap. v. Lardners Works: edit. London, 
1788. Vol.ii. p. 88. 



1745. 

Weismann (Christ. Eber.) Introductio in Memorabilia Ecclesiastica. Hahe. 
Magd. 1745. 2 vol. 4to. 
Epistolarum authentia et Veritas tarn aperte et solide ab Eruditis quibusdam 
viris, inter quos laudatissimam operam huic negotio impendit Jo. Pearson, in 
Vindiciis Ignatianis, demonstrata est, ut objectiones, ab initio contradictionis 
magis speciosee, nunc inanes et leves haberi possint, et satis apertum est quod 
ad substantiam rei, nihil posse solidi opponi, quidquid sit de quibusdam locis et 
circumstantiis specialibus, quse facilius est in litem provocare problematicam. 

Interim idem vir Doctissimus (Mcshemius) 

nec breviores epistolas ex codice Mediceo editas ubique fluere puras existimat. 
Quibus dubiis durantibus, ne sic quidem usus harum epistolarum apud morosos 
et Criticos lectores erit magnus et stabilis. — P. 137. 



1746. 

Heumann (Christ. Aug.) Conspectus Reipublicce Literarice : Hanoverce, 1763. 

edit. 7. 12mo. 

Ad Pseudo-Ignatium quod attinet, est sane quod mirer, esse adhuc eruditis- 
simos viros, qui sputa ejus lingant, nec agnoscant fraudem tot manifestis pro- 
ditam indiciis. Vide, quseso, quee dixi a 1710 in Actis Eruditorum, p. 196. sqq. 
Atque hsec transcribere dignatus est in suos Commentarios de scriptoribus eccle- 
siasticis Oudinus, qui et csetera argumenta profert, quse credere nos cogunt, 
epistolas illas nulla excepta esse foetus subdititios. Clericus quidem in Arte 
sua Critica judicat, Pearsonium eo successu defendisse Epistolas Ignatii, id hel- 
ium illud certa ac perpetua victoria confecerit. Verum tarn acuti viri oculos. 
credo, prsestrinxit auctoritas Episcoporum Anglise, quorum amnios dissensions 
sua 1 offendere non sustinebat. Contrarium edoceri potest, qui legere voluerlt 
editas Eothomagi a 1674. Matthcei Larroquani Observations in Ignatianas 
Pearsonii Vindicias : quas nuper Colerus recensuit in Bibliotheca sua theologica. 
Mihi quidem hsec potissima videntur ac certissima vodei'as indicia. 1. Sco- 
pus harum epistolarum, id spectantium, ut in immensum augeatur auctoritas ac 
majestas Episcoporum. Id quod indicio est, vel post Cyprianum scripsisse 
illarum auctorem epistolarum. Ac observarit Dodwellus, non esse ovum ovo 
similius, quam Ignatianas totam Cypriani de Episcoporum auctoritate ratiocina- 
tionem. 2. Silentium de his epistolis per tria priora ssecula ; cognomen 

( 1 ) Observatum quibusdam est, multa fecisse Clericum in gratiam Episcoporum Anglise, 
metu scilicet adductum, ne aliquando inusta heereseos noto Batavis cogeretur terris exce- 
dere, sperantemque, fore turn, ut sacri x^ngliee proceres se reciperent in sua tabernacula. 



APPENDIX. 



xvii 



Theophori in epistolarum harum inscriptionibus nomini Ignatii adjunctum ; 
4. fabulee junioris revi, e.g. in Epistolce ad Ephesios, §. xix. ; 5. ipsa peregrina- 

tionis ratio, in qua scriptse dicuntur hse epistolse 6. ipsa styli 

fades. Certe quotiescunque has legi epistolas, (legi autem ssepius,) deprehendi, 
omnia in illis esse frigida, jejuna, inepti tumoris affectateeque grandiloquentise 
plena, et nimis vivide spirantia vanum ac planum Greeculum ; 7. auctoritas 
summorum Criticorum. Eusebius quidem eas epistolas, et quidem primus, 
venditavit pro genuinis. Verum quis moveatur auctoritate hominis criticse 
prudentiee tarn expertis, ut vel Abgari et Christi mutuas epistolas pro veris 
amplexetur ? Quis non potius eos ducat sequendos, qui post susceptum illarum 
epistolarum examen censuerunt, eas ad unam omnes a Grseculo quopiam de- 
clamatore confectas et confictas fuisse ? Dixerunt antem hanc sententiam 
Centuriatores Magdeburgici, Mart. Chemnitius, Jo. Gerkardus, Kortholtus, Ten- 
zelius, Zeltnerus, Calvinas, Blondellus, Salmasius, Dallcsus, Whitakerius, Rob. 
Cocus, Rob. Parkerus, Sam. Basnagius, Albertinus, Mat. et Dan. Larroquani, 
Frid. Spanhemius, Lampius. Omnium vero primo loco poni oportet Photium, 
qui, dum in sua Bibliotheca Epistolas Ignatii non recognovit, tacitus clamat, 
sibi dubium haud esse, quin nomen eee gerant falsissimum. — p. 492. 



1751. 

Jortin (John), Remarks on Ecclesiastical History. London, 1751. 8vo. 
They who contend for the larger Epistles would do well to weigh one thing, 
which they never seem to think of, namely, that, whilst they want to support 
I know not what, they are hurting the reputation of an Apostolical Father, 
whom they have in great esteem : for if the passages which I have already 
pointed out, and those which others have censured, could be shewed to be 
genuine, Ignatius would be much less valued than he is by men of sense and 
judgment. But though the shorter Epistles are on many accounts preferable 
to the larger, yet I will not affirm that they have undergone no alteration at 
all.— Vol. i. p. 361. 



1755. 

Mosheim (J. Li.) j An Ecclesiastical History, Antient and Modern, translated by 
Archibald Maclaine. London, 1765. 2 Vol. 4to. 
There are yet extant several epist'.es attributed to him, concerning the 
authenticity of which there have been, however, warm disputes among the 
learned, which still subsist. Of these epistles, seven are said to have been 
written by this eminent martyr, during his journey from Antioch to Rome ; and 
these the most of learned men acknowledge to be genuine, as they stand in the 
edition that was published in the last century, from a manuscript in the Medi- 
cean library. The others are generally rejected as spurious. As to my own 
sentiments of this matter, though I am willing to adopt this opinion as prefera- 
ble to any other, yet I cannot help looking upon the authenticity of the 



XV 111 



APPENDIX. 



Epistle to Polycarp as extremely dubious, on account of the difference of style ; 
and, indeed, the whole question relating to the epistles of St. Ignatius in gene- 
ral, seems to me to labour under much obscurity, and to be embarrassed with 
many difficulties. — Vol. i. p. 51. 



1761. 

Ernesti (J.Aug.), Neue Theologische BibHothek. Leipzig, 1761. 8vo. 
Wir erinnern uns dabey, dass dieses abgeschmackte Gleichniss unter die 
Dinge gehbret, um derentwillen wir lange aufgehoret haben zu glauben, dass 
Ignatius Verfasser von den unter seinem Namen bekannten Briefen sey, die 
Vossius und Usserius fiir echt erkannt haben, da wir mit der Meynung, sie zu 
lesen angefangen hatten, sie waren von ihm. Denn da kbmmt gar oft das 
schbne Spriichlein vor: Wer den Bischof ehret, der ehret Gott den Yater, wer 
den Priester, u. s. w. Wir konnen nicbt glauben, dass ein Vir Apostolicus. den 
das Alterthum so riihmet, solche dumme Brief e habe schreiben konnen, und 
dass es der christl. Religion eine Ehre sey, das zu glauben und zu vertheidigen. 
Vol. 2. p. 489. 



1788. 

Griesbach (J. J.), Dissertatio historico-theologica locos Theohgicos ex Leone 
Magno, Pontifice Romano, sistens. Hallos, 1768. 4to. 
Sic ortEe sunt procul dubio du» illse Actuum Andrece recensiones, quarum 
alteram omnes repudiant, alteram vero Bellarminus et Natalis Alexander 
cum aliis quibusdam pontificiis defendunt. Tide Beausobre. I. c. p. 400. 
Utra genuina, utra adulterata sit, id ad hanc causam nullius est momenti, cum 
illud tantum affirmem, utramlibet esse a quadam Christianorum parte ad con- 
firmandas suas opiniones immutatam. Forsitan etiam duplex ilia Ignatiana- 
rum Epistolarum recensio invenustis hujusmodi studiis suam debet originem. 
Quid ? si utraque, quae nobis superest, recensio dicatur paraphrasis esse Epi- 
stolarum Ignatii genuinarum, plane deperditarum ? Non desunt enim in 
utraque interpolationum ac immutationum vestigia. A diversis Christianorum 
sectis, quarum altera tamen multo audacior fait altera, concinnatse videntur 
diverste editiones. — J. J . Griesbachii Opuscula Academica. 8vo. Jena, 1824. 
Vol. i. p. 26. 



1775. 

Schroeckh (J. M.), Christliche Kirchengeschichte. Leipzig, 17/5. 8vo. 
Aber mitten unter dem guten BegrifFe, den man von diesen kurzern 
Briefen bekbmmt, erheben sich auch manche Zweifel, welche sie verdachtig 
machen. Nicht zu gedenken, dass es Stellen darinne giebt, von welchen man 
nicht sehen kann, wozu sie den Gemeinen dienen sollten, indem sie ausser 
Verbindung mit dem iibrigen Inhalte und Endzwecke stehen ; so trifft man 
auch andere an, die entweder sonderbare und dunkle Einfalle iiber Lehren 



APPENDIX. 



xix 



der Religion entbalten, (wie ad Ephes. c. 19. von den drey Geheimnissen des 
Geschreyes, die in einem gottlichen Stillschweigen vollendet worden seyn sollen, 
der Jungfrauschaft und Schwangerschaft Maria ; und dem Tode Jesu ;) oder 
solche, die auf Ketzereyen zu zielen scheinen, welche erst nach den Zeiten des 
Ignatius aufkamen, (wie ad Magnes. c. 8. von der Sige des Yalentinus :) oder 
noch andere, in denen die Lehren des Christenthums nicht in den richtigsten 
Ausdriicken vorgestellt sind, (wie ad Smyrn. c. 1 . wo Jesus Christus der Sohn 
Gottes nach dem Willen und nach der Macht Gottes genannt wird). Noch hat 
der Brief an den Polycarpus die merkliche Verschiedenheit der Schreibart, 
gegen die andern Briefe gehalten, wider sich : und vielen kommt es auch unna- 
tiirlich vor, dass in demselben eine weitlanftige Stelle an die Gemeine zu 
Smyrna gerichtet ist, an welche Ignatius besonders geschrieben hatte. Alle 
diese Vorwiirfe konnen vielleicht abgelehnt oder gemildert werden ; der wich- 
tigste ist noch iibrig, namlich der ausserordentliche Eifer fiir die bischofiiche 
Wiirde und Regierung, der in diesen Briefen herrscht, und in der Empfehlung 
eines vollkommnen Gehorsams, einer uneingeschrankten Unterwiirfigkeit gegen 
die Bischofe geschaftig ist. Eine so hervorstechende Absicht, muss man dabey 
denken, kommt nicht einem so bescheidenen Schiller der Apostel, nicht Zeiten 
zu, in denen die kaum entstandnen Bischofe nur lehrten, niemanden aber zu 
befehlen such ten. Man hat zwar dabey die Anmerkung gemacht, es sey zu 
einer Zeit, da die Religion der Christen schon von so manchen Irrlehrern 
verdreht wurde, durchaus nothwendig gewesen, dass sie ihren Lehren, die zum 
Theil von den Aposteln selbst waren gesetzt worden, die Christliche Religion 
sehr wohl kannten, und sie auch in ihrem Leben ausiibten, ohne alle Ausnahme 
gehorchten : zumal, setzt man hinzu, da die Schriften der Apostel damals noch 
nicht alien Christen bekannt waren, und auch das Wohl, die Festigkeit dieser 
ersten Gemeinen, auf der genausten Verbindung mit ihren Lehrern beruhten. 
Aber diese nicht ungegrundete oder doch scheinbare Entschuldigung ist kaum 
fiir diese Briefe zulanglich. Denn es ist nicht bloss Folgsamkeit gegen die 
christlichen Vorschriften der Lehrer, die den Christen darinne auferlegt wird ; 
sie werden vielmehr belehrt, dass sie auf den Bischof so sehr, als auf den Herm 
selbst sehen miissten; (ad Ephes. c. 6.) sie waren verbunden, dem Bischof eb en 
so nachzufolgen, wie Jesus Christus seinem Vater, und den Aeltesten so wie den 
Aposteln, (ad Smyr. c. 8.) und wer etwas ohne Vorwissen des Bischofs verrichte, 
diene dem Teufel (ibid. c. 9.). Schwerlich ist dieses die Sprache der Apostel, 
und der Geist des Christenthums, das seine Verehrer keineswegs so knechtisch 
an Menschen verwiesen und gleichsam gebunden hat, sondern, bey alien 
Eorderungen an dieselben, doch ihre Freyheit vor menschlichem Ansehen in 
Sicherheit setzt. Ein sehr gewohnliches Mittel, durch welches man dieser 
und den iibrigen Schwierigkeiten ausweichen kann, ist bey diesen Briefen mit 
gutem Erfolge gebraucht worden. Alle solche Stellen, hat man gesagt, die man 
mit der Denkungsart des Ignatius nicht vereinigen kann, sind Yerfalschungen 
spaterer Zeiten. So wahrscheinlich auch dieses ist, so schwer bleibt es gleich- 
wohl, zu zeigen, welches die verfalschten Stellen sind. — Vol.ii. p. 341. 



XX 



APPENDIX. 



1784. 

Semler (D. J. Sal.) Paraphrasis in Epistolam II. Petri. Halse, 1784. 12mo. 
Atque vel mediocriter perlegenti utramque Epistolarum recensionem satis 
patebit, interpolate rem jam in manibus habuisse quatuor Evangelia, omnes fere 
Epistolas Pauli, et primam Petri, forte et Jacobi ; sed prima recensio, quse est 
multo brevior, caruit tot allegationibus Veteris et Novi Testamenti ; quia scilicet 
isto tempore tarn copiosus canon nondum in ecclesia ilia catholica receptus 
fuerat, cum ipsa societas heec major nondum coiisset. Hie non opus est, ut 
repetamus longam illam controversiam de his Epistolis ; mihi sufficit, jam 
Irenseum scivisse Epistolas Ignatii ; excitavit enim aliquam sententiam (sum 
frumentum Christi etc.) quse extat in epistola ad Komanos. Nempe Romse aut 
in partibus Asise Minoris collectse atque compositse sunt hse epistolse ; quas 
Irenseus jam novit ; proprior scilicet officinse, e qua prodierunt. Sub finem tamen 
sseculi 2. aut sub initium sseculi 3 ; nec potuit Irenseus aliquid ipse reperire, 
quod Valentinianse opinioni opponeret ; quales tamen sententise plures in istis 
Epistolis postea insunt. Clemens autem ille Alexandrinus, qui tamen itinera 
multa confecerat, nondum aliquid de Ignatio et omni ejus fabula didicerat. 
Proefat. 



1795. 

Rosenmuller (D. J. G.), Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum in Ec- 
clesia Christiana. Hildburg. 1795. 5 Vol. 12mo. 

Ad epistolas Ignatianas quod attinet, totam earum caussam valde impeditam 
esse, omnes hodie fatentur. Quicquid sit de earum auctore, atque de tempore, 
quo scriptse sunt, hoc saltern certum est et indubitatum, tantam esse Ignatia- 
rum Epistolarum et Pseudo-Clementinarum Constitutionum, qua? Apostolicse 
nominantur, cognationem et similitudinem, ut dubitari vix possit, quin alteruter 
Scriptor alterius dogmata atque prEecepta expresserit, quin etiam ejus ssepe 
sententias totidem verbis exscriptas transtulerit. Viderunt hoc etiam alii e. c. 
Franciscus Turrianus et Carolus Bovius, quorum uterque confidenter pronun- 
tiat, Ignatium Constitutiones Apostolorum esse imitatum. Alii fortassis dicent, 
Auctorem Constitutionum imitatum esse epistolas Ignatianas, et uberiore ser- 
mone, additis Scriptura3 locis amplificasse ea, quse in illis epistolis breviter dicta 
erant. Quis autem in re tarn obscura pronunciaverit ? — Vol. i. p. 116. 



1798. 

Ziegler (W.C.L.), Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der kirchlichen Ver- 
fassungsformen in den ersten sechs Jahrhunderten. Leipzig, 1798. 8vo. 
Den auffallendsten Beweis hievon wiirden die Briefe des Bischofs Ignatius 
(tl-06) von Antiochien geben, selbst diejenigen, welche Hammond und Pearson 
noch haben retten wollen, denn in den Briefen an die Smyrnenser, Magnesier 
und Trallenser steht der voile Stufenunterschied zvvischen Bischbfen, Presby- 



APPENDIX. 



xxi 



tern und Diaconen schon da : allein er ist audi bereits so stark gezeicb.net, dass 
gerade diese Stellen es hbchst wabrscheinlich macben, ibr Verfasser babe erst 
im dritten oder vierten Jahrhundert gelebt 1 . Eine sobere Kritik konnte zwar 
noch spatere Interpolationen annehmen, um wenigsten, den Gnmdstoff fiir den 
Ignatius zu retten, aber es scheint in der Tbat wenig damit gebolfen zu seyn, 
denn ich bin mit andern Gelebrten der Meinung, dass kaum nocb ein Ganzes 
iibrig bleiben diirfte, so bald man alle verdachtige Stellen heraus wirft 2 . Wer 
vermag es, den Urstoff zu sondern von den spatern Interpolationen oder Ueberar- 
beitungen, die zu verscbiedenen Zeiten erfolgt sind, um einem sichern histori- 
scben Beweis fiir eine gewisse Zeit aus diesem Cento fiibren zu kbnnen ? — P. 16. 

(!) Schon der grosse Just Hemring Bbbmer hielt unter den Deutchen die ganzen Briefe 
des Ignatius dieser Stellen wegen fiir untergeschoben.Diss. vi. de differentia inter ordinem 
ecclesiasticum, p. 333. Nachher haben sich Ernesti, Semler und Andere ebeufalls dagegen 
erklart. Unter den Auslandern war wohl Saumaise der erste, welcber sie apodictisch dem 
Ignatius absprach. Er schrieb schon im Jahr 1645. Ignatium non esse earum auctorem, 
tarn cerium puto, quam me hac scribere. cf. Salmasius, 1. c. p. 58 fine. 

( 2 ) S. Rbsler's Bibliothek der Kirchenvater 1. Th. S. 70. und Schmidt's Versuch iiher 
die gedoppelte Recension der Briefe des Ignatius in Henke's Magazin fiir Religionsphiloso- 
phie, u. s. w. 3. B. 1. St. Aus der scharfsinnigen kritischen Untersuchung dieses Gelehr- 
ten ergiebt sich, dass es durch die Ueberarbeitung dieser Briefe, welche schon zurZeit des 
Irenaus dem Ignatius beygelegt wurden, von Seiten der Katholischen Kirche unmbglich 
gewordeu ist den Urstoff noch heraus zu finden, wie er etwa zur Zeit des Irenaus war. 
Die zeitige Dogmatik der katholischen Partey und die zeitige Hierarchie sind so eng mit 
dem Ganzen verwebt, dass keine Absonderung mchr mbglich ist. Der Urstoff mag im- 
merhin schon aus den Zeiten des Antonin's oder Marc Aurel's seyn, wohin Saumaise das 
Ganze verlegen wollte. Es heisst nahmlich in dem Briefe an die Magnesier "der ewige 
Logos, welcher nicht aus der Sige hervor geht" (koyo; u'thos ovx ano Eiy/is v^oiXSuv). 
Diess bezieht sich auf die Valentinianer, welche viel von einem Bvh; und einer "Etyn 
sprachen. Hieraus schliesst Saumaise, dass damahls, als diess geschrieben wurde, die 
Valentinianer recht hliihen mussten, und nimmt desswegen jenes Zeitalter an. Weil aber 
auch zugleich in diesem Briefe der hierarcbische Stufenunterschied eine viori^nn rufys 
heisst, so meint er ehenfalls, dass er um diese Zeit aufgekommen seyn miisse. Allein so 
stark, wie er hier gezeichnet wird, so dass der Bischof Gott und die Presbyter die Apostel 
vorstellen sollen, war dieser Unterschied in der Mitte des zwej ten Jahrhunderts noch 
nicht. Dergleichen kann nur aus dem dritten oder vierten Jahrhunderte seyn. 



1816. 

Kestner (Cbr. Aug.), Commentatio de Eusebii, Historice Ecclesiasticce Conditoris, 
Auctoritate et fide diplomatica. Gottingse, 1816. 4to. 
Quales igitur quantasque etiam ab hac parte critico Eusebii studio setate 
nostra gratias agere debebimus ? Sed cautio tamen in hac re adbibenda erit, ne 
Eusebianse sententise gravitati falsa quadam ratiocinatione aliquando noceamus. 
Fieri enim potest, ut Eusebius authentiam librorum quorundam strenue de- 
fendat, quos nostra quidem setate pro spuriis baberi et babendos esse sciamus. 
Exemplo hujus rei sint Ignazii epistolee ; quas quidem Eusebius pro genuinis 
habendas esse notat atque etiam iii. 38. (ab init cap.) his verbis : " (ooa-Trepow 
apekei rov lyvartov, (sc. TrapaSocrcs (peperai) ev az? KareXe^apev eTri(TTo\ai<;" 
idem contendere perseverat. Kecentiores vero, velut Blondellus, Salmasius, 



xxii 



APPENDIX. 



Owenus novissimeque Semlerus ilia? supposititias esse eo maxime argumento 
probarunt, quod multse illse continerent, quse Ignazii tempore scribi omnino non 
potuissent; qualia essent, quae in epistola ad Trallenses luculentissime ad 
Papam extollendum spectantia reperirentur. Sed quam facile in hac re ab 
omni culpa liberari poterit Eusebius, si res, qua; cum Ignazii tempore non 
congruunt, post Eusebii retatem demum a falsario quodam interpolatas esse 
eadem conjectura evincas, qua jam Strothius, et prsecipue Hammond et Pearson 
illas Epistolas non totas saltern spurias esse probaverunt. — p. 63. 



1818. 

Henke (H. P. K.), Allgemeine Geschichte der Christlicken Kirche. 
Braunschweig, 1818. 8vo. 
Von einem Biscbofe zu Antiochien, wenn Petrus mit gezahlt wird, dem 
dritten, Ignatius, welcben Trajan selbst gekannt, und zum Kampfe mit wilden 
Thieren verurtheilt baben soil, sind einige Briefe, die auf seiner Reise nach 
Rom zu solchen Kampfe von ihm gescrieben seyn sollen. Aber man ist iiber 
Anzahl und Aechtheit derselben, iiber den kurzern oder langern Text, und den 
Werth des Inbalts, nicht einig. Sie sind voll holier Begriffe von Bischofswiirde 
und voll Ruhms derer, die fur ihren Eifer verfolgt und getodtet werden, 
(Martyrer) iiber wichtigere Dinge sehr seicbt und armselig, und passen durchaus 
nicht fur die Verhiiltnisse jener Zeit und fur den Mann. — Vol. i. p. 96. 



1824. 

Schmidt (Joh. Ernst Christ.), Handbuch der Christlicken Kirchengeschichte. 
Giessen, 1824. 8yo. 

Die ersten Spuren solcher Bestrebungen zeigen sich in der Geschichte des 
Ignatius, Bischofs von Antiochien — wenn anders den, unter seinem Namen 
vorhandenen Briefen, zu trauen ist. In Riicksicht dieser Briefe zeigt sich die 
sonderbare Erscheinung, dass sie in zwiefacher Gestalt vorhanden sind, einmahl 
kiirzer, das andere mahl langer und weitlauftiger. Die kiirzeren Briefe 
enthalten manches, was sich nicht in den liingeren findet. Dass audi die lan- 
geren vieles enthalten, was man in den kiirzeren vermisst, versteht sich ohne- 
hin. Das Eigenthiimliche, sowohl der langern als der der kurzern Briefe, 
bestehet theils in Zusatzen von Bibelstellen, theils in Beziehungen auf Ketze- 
reyen der spateren Zeit. Dass dies alles von einer spateren Hand abgeleitet 
werden musse, daran kann man nicht zweifeln ; und die Sache enthalt auch 
nichts befremdendes, denn man hat Beyspiele, dass altere christliche Schriften 
von den spateren Christen auf diese Weise behandelt, — und, wie man glaubte, 
verbessert wurden. Nimmt man aber dieses alles weg, so stimmen doch beyde 
Texte noch nicht ganz mit einander iiberein. Allein beynahe alle Abweichun- 
gen, welche jetzt noch iibrig bleiben, betreffen entweder dogmatische Stellen. 



APPENDIX. 



XXill 



oder Stellen von lokalem und individuellem Bezug. Setzt man bey erstern 
vorans, dass man sich's in spatern Zeiten erlaubt habe, dasjenige, was nachden 
Bestimmungen dieser spatern Zeiten nicbt ganz rechtglaubig ansgedriickt war, 
zu verandern,— und nimmt man bey letzteren an, dass man dasjenige, was 
lokalen und individuellen Bezug hatte, darum spaterbin verandert habe, um 
dadurcb die Briefe allgemeiner braucbbar zu machen : so ist dies wenigstens ein 
Verfabren, was nicbt den Vorwurf eines willkuhrlichen verdient. — Dass Igna- 
tius solcbe Briefe geschrieben babe, dass diese sebr friihe ziemlicb weit ver- 
breitet wurden, dass dieselben mancbe Stellen entbielten, welche sicb in den 
noch vorhandenen wieder finden : dies alles ist bistorisch erweislicb. Es muss 
daber erlaubt seyn, dass man auf die angegebene Weise versucbe, aus den 
vorbandenen Briefen die urspriingliche Grundlage derselben berzustellen. 
Freylicb bleiben dann nocb Stellen iibrig, von welchen man sagt, sie verriethen 
die Denkart spaterer Zeiten — namlicb Stellen, die zur Erhebuug des Ansebens 
der Bischofe beytragen. Allein, war jene hohe Acbtung fiir die Bischbfliche 
Wiirde diesen Zeiten wirklicb so fremde, als man nun einmabl annimmt ? 
Hiervon wird kiinftig nocb die Rede seyn. Und ware dies aucb : wer biirgt 
denn dafiir, dass nicbt gerade die Ignaziscben Briefe vieles dazu beytrugen, 
um die Denkart der folgenden Zeit zu bestimmen ? — Vol. i. p. 200. 



182G. 

Neander (Augustus), The History of the Christian Religion and Church 
during the Three First Centuries. Translated by H. J. Rose. 1841. 
Ignatius, Bisbop of the Church at Antioch, in the time of the Emperor 
Trajan, it would appear, was carried as prisoner to Borne, where he expected 
to be exposed to wild beasts. On the journey, it would seem, he wrote seven 
Epistles; six to the Churches of Asia Minor, and one to Polycarp, Bishop of 
Smyrna. Certainly these epistles contain passages which at least bear com- 
pletely upon them the character of Antiquity. This is particularly the case 
with the passages directed against Judaism and Docetism : but even the 
shorter and more trustworthy edition is very much interpolated. — Vol. ii. p. 334. 

To the second edition of his Church-History, published in the year 1843, 
Neander has added the following to the above passage : — ■ 

Wie der Bericht iiber den Martyrertod des Ignatius sebr verdachtig ist, so 
tragen auch die Briefe, welche die Bichtigkeit dieser verdacbtigen Sage voraus- 
setzen, durchaus nicht das Geprage einer bestimmten Eigenthumlichkeit und 
eines Mannes aus dieser Zeit, eines Mannes, der seine letzten Worte den 
Gemeinden zuruft. Eine hierarchische Absichtlichkeit ist nicht zu verkennen. 
p. 1140. 



xxiv 



APPENDIX. 



1832. 

Baumgarten — Crustus (Lnd. Tr. Ott.), Lehrbuch der Christichen Dogmen- 
geschichte. Jena, 1832. 8vo. 

Vornehmlich in den sieben Briefen des Ignatius ist es durchaus nicht 

mehr erkennbar, wie viel sich von dem Vorhandenen in den Originaien 
gefunden habe 1 . — P. 83. 

( ] ) Die Citate bei den alteren Vatern ausgenommen. Ansser den sieben Briefen 
(Eus. H. E 3. 36. Hieron catal. 16.) ist alles Ignatianische entschieden unacht, und, seit- 
dem die beiden Recensionen von jenen neben einander bekannt sind, wird die kiirzere 
gewbhnlicb vorgezogen, und fur acht gebalten ; hdcbstens den an die Rdmer ausgenom- 
men. Die Griinde dagegen von J. Dallaus (de scriptis, quae sub Di. Ar. et Ignatii nomini- 
bus circnmferuntur. Gen. 666. 4. vgl. J. Pearson: Vindiciae epp. S. Ign. Cantbr. 672. 4.) 
sind indess nicht widerlegt. Nach Semler, Griesbach (opusc. L.26.), Schmidt (ii. die 
gedoppelte Recension der Briefe des Ign. Henk. Mag. iii. 91.) Staudlin (G. d. SL. I. ii. 84.) 
u. A., hat man wahrscheinlich beide Recensionen fiir Ueberarbeitungen der Originale 
anzusehen: die kiirzere mehr im kirchlichen. die langere mehr im dogmatischen Interesse 
angelegt ; daher sich in dieser auch noch bestimmtere Hindeutungen auf Haretiker linden, 
und entscbiedener Gebrauch apost. Stellen. Es ist nicht unmdglich, dass sich noch an- 
dere Recensionen der Schriften einmal vornnden. — Ausg. von Tho. Smith, Oxo?i. 709. 4. 



1834. 

Harless (G.C. A.), Commentur uber den Brief Paidi an die Ephesier. 1S34. 

Der Streit, ob die altere oder kiirzere der Becensionen den acbten Text 
gebe, oder welche von beiden reiner und weniger ent>tellt, ist nocb nicht zur 
Entscbeidung gekommen. Jedenfalls glaube icb jedocb die Meinung Heu- 
mann's und Oudin's als seien diese Briefe durchaus unacht, mit den bedeutend- 
sten Kritiken alterer und neuerer Zeit entschieden verwerfen zu miissen. 
Einleitung, p. xxxiv. 



1840. 

Baumgarten — Crusius (Lud. Tr. Ott.), Compendium der Christlichen Dogmen- 
geschichte. Leipzig, 1840. 8vo. 
Die Untersuchungen iiber die sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiocbia, 
obwobl noch nicht gescblossen, baben docb wieder der altern Meinung naher 
gefiibrt, dass die kiirzere, spater aufgefundene Recension urspriinglicher sei, als 
die langere, und dass sicb in dieser mannicbfacbe Entstellungen des urspriin- 
glicben Sinnes finden. Indessen kann auch die kiirzere nccb, wo nicht Ueber- 
arbeitungen, doch Interpolationen, erfahren baben. Die zwei, in den Briefen 
hervortretenden Idee'n, die Yerehrung des bischoflichen Amts, und die Be- 
streitung des Doketismus, lassen sich in der Einfachbeit, wie sie sich hier 
darlegen, durchaus mit Sinn und Art der altesten Zeiten der Kirche verein- 
baren. — P. 79. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 754 833 1 q 



